UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 78 FERC 61,221
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
18 CFR Part 37
[Docket No. RM95-9-001; Order No. 889-A]
Open Access Same-Time Information System and Standards of Conduct
(Issued March 4, 1997)
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final Rule; order on rehearing.
SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is revising
its policy on posting discounts to be consistent with changes in
the discount policy that we simultaneously are implementing in
Order No. 888-A. Additionally, we are making other minor
revisions to 18 CFR Part 37 -- which contains rules establishing
and governing transmission information networks and standards of
conduct -- to be responsive to arguments made on rehearing and to
make the regulations operate more smoothly.
In addition, the Commission requests that the How Working
Group propose the necessary changes in the Standards and
Protocols document and the Data Dictionary by June 2, 1997 to
address four issues.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This order on rehearing will become effective on
[insert date 60 days from the date of publication in the Federal
Register]. The current requirements of Part 37 will remain in
effect until this order becomes effective.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marvin Rosenberg (Technical Information)
Office of Economic Policy
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20426
-ii- Docket No. RM95-9-001
(202) 208-1283
William C. Booth (Technical Information)
Office of Electric Power Regulation
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20426
(202) 208-0849
Gary D. Cohen (Legal Information)
Office of the General Counsel
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20426
(202) 208-0321
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In addition to publishing the full
text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission
also provides all interested persons an opportunity to inspect or
copy the contents of this document during normal business hours
in the Public Reference Room at 888 First Street, N.E.,
Washington, D.C. 20426.
The Commission Issuance Posting System (CIPS), an electronic
bulletin board service, provides access to the texts of formal
documents issued by the Commission. CIPS is available at no
charge to the user and may be accessed using a personal computer
with a modem by dialing 202-208-1397 if dialing locally or
1-800-856-3920 if dialing long distance. To access CIPS, set
your communications software to 19200, 14400, 12000, 9600, 7200,
4800, 2400, or 1200 bps, full duplex, no parity, 8 data bits and
1 stop bit. The full text of this order will be available on
CIPS in ASCII and Wordperfect 5.1 format. CIPS user assistance
is available at 202-208-2474.
-iii- Docket No. RM95-9-001
CIPS is also available through the Fed World system. Telnet
software is required. To access CIPS via the Internet, point
your browser to the URL address: http://www.fedworld.gov and
select the Go to the FedWorld Telnet Site button. When your
Telnet software connects you, log onto the FedWorld system,
scroll down and select FedWorld by typing: 1 and at the command
line then typing: /go FERC. FedWorld may also be accessed by
Telnet at the address fedworld.gov.
Finally, the complete text on diskette in WordPerfect format
may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, La Dorn
Systems Corporation. La Dorn Systems Corporation is also located
in the Public Reference Room at 888 First Street, N.E.,
Washington, D.C. 20426.
-iv- Docket No. RM95-9-001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
III. PUBLIC REPORTING BURDEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
IV. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A. OVERVIEW OF REVISIONS MADE IN THIS ORDER . . . . . . 7
B. SECTION 37.1 -- APPLICABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Extent of the Commission's Authority to Impose
Standards of Conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2. The Commission's Authority to Impose Reciprocity
Provision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3. Waiver Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
C. SECTION 37.2 -- PURPOSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
D. SECTION 37.3 -- DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
E. SECTION 37.4 -- STANDARDS OF CONDUCT . . . . . . . 24
1. Contacts Between Employees Providing Ancillary
Services and System Operators . . . . . . . . 26
2. Contacts Between Generation Control Employees and
Transmission Operations and Wholesale Merchant
Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3. Monitoring the Standards of Conduct . . . . . 30
4. Adequacy of Emergency Exception . . . . . . . 31
5. Short-term Economy Energy Purchases . . . . . 32
6. Tight Pools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7. Clarification of 37.4(b)(5)(iv) . . . . . . 36
8. Discounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
F. SECTION 37.5 -- OBLIGATIONS OF TRANSMISSION PROVIDERS
AND RESPONSIBLE PARTIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
-v- Docket No. RM95-9-001
G. SECTION 37.6 -- INFORMATION TO BE POSTED
ON AN OASIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
1. Definition of Posted Path . . . . . . . . . 42
2. Definition of interconnection . . . . . . . 45
3. ATC Supporting Information . . . . . . . . . . 46
a. Disclosure of Data Supporting Calculations of
ATC and TTC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
b. Disclosure of Data on Nonfirm ATC . . . . 48
c. Time Limits for Disclosure of Utility
Generation Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
d. Reporting of Network Service Usage . . . 51
4. Posting Firm and Nonfirm ATC Separately . . . 51
5. Minimum Term of Firm Point-to-Point Transmission
Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
6. Posting of Discounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
7. Secondary Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
8. Masking of Service Request Information . . . . 61
9. Requests for Service Made on the OASIS
During Phase I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
10. Delay in Posting Requests for Hourly Transmission
Service and Schedule Information . . . . . . . 67
11. Liability for Accuracy of ATC/TTC Estimates . 68
H. SECTION 37.7 -- AUDITING TRANSMISSION SERVICE
INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
I. STANDARDS AND COMMUNICATION PROTOCOLS . . . . . . . 71
1. CCEM's Suggested Changes to the Standards and
Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
a. Service Request Priorities . . . . . . . 72
b. Clarification of the Requirement to Post,
Upload, and Download Information . . . . 74
-vi- Docket No. RM95-9-001
c. Sequence of Data Elements Appearing in
Templates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
2. Standardized Format for Electronic
Tariff Filings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
3. Company Codes and Identification Displays . . 77
4. Common Location Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
5. Time by Which Hourly Postings Must be Made
Available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
J. MECHANISM FOR RECOVERING OASIS EXPENSES . . . . . . 81
K. SECTION 37.8 -- IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE; PHASES . . 83
V. REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT CERTIFICATION . . . . . . . . 84
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
VII. INFORMATION COLLECTION STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
VIII. EFFECTIVE DATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
REGULATORY TEXT
ATTACHMENT 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Before Commissioners: Elizabeth Anne Moler, Chair;
Vicky A. Bailey, James J. Hoecker,
William L. Massey, and Donald F. Santa, Jr.
Open Access Same-time Information ) Docket No. RM95-9-001
System and Standards of Conduct )
ORDER NO. 889-A
ORDER ON REHEARING
OF ORDER NO. 889
(Issued March 4, 1997)
I. INTRODUCTION
In this order, the Commission addresses the requests for
rehearing of Order No. 889, our final rule requiring public
utilities that own, control, or operate facilities used for the
transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce to create
or participate in an Open Access Same-Time Information System
(OASIS) site in conformance with the requirements set out in 18
CFR Part 37. 1/ Those requirements also obligate public
utilities subject to the rule to implement standards of conduct
to functionally separate transmission and wholesale merchant
functions.
1/ Open Access Same-Time Information System and Standards of
Conduct, Final Rule, Order No. 889, FERC Stats. & Regs.
31,037, 61 FR 21,737 (1996). Since issuance of Order No.
889, we have issued two additional orders. These orders:
(1) revise the standards and communication protocols for
OASIS nodes; and (2) extend the date for commencing Phase I
OASIS operations and complying with the standards of
conduct. See infra notes 4, 6, respectively.
-2- Docket No. RM95-9-001
For the reasons stated, we will grant rehearing, in part,
and adopt several suggested revisions to the OASIS final rule,
but will, in main part, deny rehearing and retain the OASIS final
rule as promulgated in Order No. 889. In addition, we request
that the How Working Group propose changes to the Standards and
Protocols document and the Data Dictionary by June 2, 1997 to
address four issues described below.
II. BACKGROUND
In Order No. 889, the Commission promulgated a final rule
(OASIS Final Rule) requiring Transmission Providers 2/ to
implement the legal and policy determinations made concurrently
in Order No. 888, the final rule on open access transmission
(Open Access Final Rule). 3/ Under Order No. 889, the OASIS
Final Rule applies to any transmission service offered under the
Open Access Final Rule pro forma tariff, including service both
to wholesale Transmission Customers and to retail Transmission
Customers that are able to receive unbundled retail transmission
service and to any entity required to provide such service.
2/ Order No. 889 and the OASIS regulations at 18 CFR 37.3
define a Transmission Provider as any public utility that
owns, operates, or controls facilities used for the
transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce.
This same definition applies to our use of this term in this
order.
3/ Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-
Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities and
Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and
Transmitting Utilities, Order No. 888, Final Rule, FERC
Stats. & Regs. 31,632, 61 FR 21,540 (1996), order on
reh'g, Order No. 888-A, -- FERC --,--- (1997).
-3- Docket No. RM95-9-001
Under the OASIS Final Rule, Transmission Providers are
required to establish or participate in an OASIS that meets
certain requirements and must comply with prescribed standards of
conduct. The standards of conduct are designed to prevent
employees of a public utility (or any employees of its
affiliates) engaged in wholesale merchant functions (wholesale
sales of electricity for resale in interstate commerce) from
obtaining preferential access to pertinent transmission-related
information.
To this end, the standards of conduct, set out in the
Commission's regulations at 18 CFR 37.4, require companies to
separate their transmission operations/reliability functions from
their wholesale marketing/merchant functions. They are intended
to prevent transmission system operators from providing wholesale
merchant employees or wholesale merchant employees of affiliates
with transmission-related information not available to all
customers at the same time (through public posting on the OASIS).
The OASIS Final Rule describes what information must be
posted on an OASIS, what procedures must be followed in
responding to requests for transmission service, and references
the Commission's accompanying Standards and Protocols document
adopted by the Commission to ensure that information is to be
posted on an OASIS in a uniform manner. 4/ Transmission
4/ See Open Access Same-Time Information System and Standards
of Conduct, Order Issuing Revised OASIS Standards and
Protocols Document, 76 FERC 61,243, 61 FR 50,116 (1996),
where the Commission revised the Standards and Protocols
document that accompanied Order No. 889.
-4- Docket No. RM95-9-001
Providers are required to provide on an OASIS, in a uniform
manner, certain types of information concerning the status of
their transmission systems. The provisions of the OASIS Final
Rule are intended to work together to ensure that Transmission
Customers 5/ have access to transmission information, through
electronic means, that will enable them to obtain comparable,
open access transmission service on a non-discriminatory basis.
Order No. 889 established Phase I OASIS rules that required
the creation of a basic OASIS by November 1, 1996 (subsequently
extended until January 3, 1997). 6/ We are appreciative of the
ongoing efforts of the How Working Group and the What Working
Group in helping to develop the OASIS Standards and Protocols and
in helping to resolve numerous difficult OASIS implementation
issues. 7/ We also, despite setbacks encountered by some
public utilities, are appreciative of the hard work of the entire
5/ Order No. 889 and the OASIS regulations at 18 CFR 37.3
define a Transmission Customer as any eligible customer
(or its designated agent) that can or does execute a
transmission service agreement or can or does receive
transmission service. This same definition applies to our
use of this term in this order.
6/ See Open Access Same-Time Information System and Standards
of Conduct, Order Granting Request for Extension of Time, 76
FERC 61,305 (1996).
7/ The How Working Group and its companion working group, the
What Working Group, are industry-led groups, with diverse
industry and customer representatives, working to reach
consensus on OASIS-related issues. See OASIS Final Rule, 61
FR at 21,740, n.13, for a fuller description of both working
groups and their activities.
-5- Docket No. RM95-9-001
electric industry in meeting the ambitious schedule for OASIS
implementation prescribed in Order No. 889.
Order No. 889 also explained that Phase I implementation
would be followed by Phase II procedures whereby the Commission,
with ongoing industry participation, will continue to refine and
further develop the requirements for a fully functional OASIS.
8/
Requests for rehearing relating to Order No. 889 were filed
by over 40 interested persons. These include 37 requests for
rehearing that collectively list both Order Nos. 888 and 889 in
their captions and ten requests for rehearing that are aimed
exclusively at Order No. 889. 9/ Several of the issues raised
on rehearing that implicate both Order Nos. 888 and 889 are
8/ In the OASIS Final Rule, 61 FR at 21,762, we requested that
the industry prepare a report on Phase II issues due on or
before August 4, 1997 (seven months from January 3, 1997,
the revised compliance date for Phase I implementation).
9/ The requests for rehearing for AK Cities, AL EC, AL MEA,
Basin EC, Cajun, Central P&L, Central Montana EC,
Cooperative Power, FPL, Florida Power Corp, Hoosier EC,
NWRTA, Santa Clara, and SWRTA raised no direct 889 issues.
The names and abbreviations of all interested persons who
filed requests for rehearing of Order No. 889 (or a combined
request for rehearing of Order Nos. 888 and 889) are listed
in Attachment 1.
We also note that, in various places in this order, we
identify issues that were raised in requests for rehearing
of Order No. 889, or that were identified as pertaining to
Order No. 889, that, in our judgment, really seek rehearing
of matters relating to Order No. 888. They are therefore
decided in Order No. 888-A.
-6- Docket No. RM95-9-001
addressed more fully in Order No. 888-A, which is being issued
contemporaneously with this order. 10/
III. PUBLIC REPORTING BURDEN
This order on rehearing adopts a number of small changes,
more fully elaborated in Section IV.E.8 below, to be consistent
with the Commission's revised discount policy being announced in
Order No. 888-A. In addition, we also are making nine minor
revisions to the OASIS Final Rule and direct the How Working
Group to propose changes to the Standards and Protocols document
addressing four additional issues. We find, after reviewing
these revisions, that they do not, on balance, increase the
public reporting burden.
The OASIS Final Rule contained an estimated annual public
reporting burden based on the requirements of the Final Rule and
consideration of comments from interested persons. 11/ Using
the burden estimate contained in the OASIS Final Rule as a
starting point, we evaluated the public burden estimate contained
in the OASIS Final Rule in light of the revisions contained in
this order and assessed whether this estimate needed revision.
We have concluded, given the minor nature of the revisions, and
their offsetting nature, that our estimate of the public
reporting burden of this order on rehearing remains unchanged
from our original estimate of the public reporting burden
10/ See Order No. 888-A.
11/ No comments were filed in objection to the public burden
estimate contained in the OASIS Final Rule.
-7- Docket No. RM95-9-001
contained in the OASIS Final Rule. The Commission has conducted
an internal review of this conclusion and has assured itself, by
means of its internal review, that there is specific, objective
support for this information burden estimate. Moreover, the
Commission has reviewed the collection of information required by
the OASIS Final Rule as revised by this order on rehearing and
has determined that the collection of information is necessary
and conforms to the Commission's plan, as described in this
order, for the collection, efficient management, and use of the
required information.
Persons wishing to comment on the collections of information
required by this order on rehearing should direct their comments
to the Desk Officer for FERC, Office of Management and Budget,
Room 3019 NEOB, Washington, D.C. 20503, phone 202-395-3087,
facsimile: 202-395-7285 or via the Internet at
hillier__t@a1.eop.gov. Comments must be filed with the Office of
Management and Budget within 30 days of publication of this
document in the Federal Register. Three copies of any comments
filed with the Office of Management and Budget also should be
sent to the following address: Ms. Lois Cashell, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Room 1A, 888 First Street,
N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426. For further information, contact
Michael Miller, 202-208-1415.
IV. DISCUSSION
A. OVERVIEW OF REVISIONS MADE IN THIS ORDER
-8- Docket No. RM95-9-001
In this order on rehearing of Order No. 889, the Commission
has implemented a new discounting policy, adopted and described
in detail in Order No. 888-A. This new discount policy
necessitates a number of changes to the Standards of Conduct and
OASIS posting requirements:
(1) We are deleting 37.4(b)(5)(v) and 37.4(b)(5)(vi).
(2) We are adding a provision now designated as
37.6(c)(3) to require, among other things, that any
offer of a discount for basic transmission service must
be announced to all potential customers solely by
posting on the OASIS.
(3) We are revising 37.6(c)(4) to no longer treat the
posting of transmission service transactions involving
the Transmission Provider's (or any affiliate's)
merchant function any differently from the posting of
transactions involving non-affiliates except that
transactions involving the Transmission Provider's
wholesale merchant function or affiliates must be
identified.
(4) We are adding a provision now designated as
37.6(d)(2) to require, among other things, that any
offer of a discount for ancillary service provided by
the Transmission Provider in support of its provision
of basic transmission service must be announced to all
potential customers solely by posting on the OASIS.
(5) We are revising 37.6(d)(3) on ancillary services
consistent with item 3 above.
(6) We are revising 37.6(e)(1)(i) to require that, except
for next-hour service, requests for transmission and
ancillary service must be posted prior to the
Transmission Provider responding to these requests.
(7) We are adding a provision, now designated as
37.6(e)(1)(ii), that during Phase I, while requests for
next-hour service need to be posted as soon as possible
and in any event within one hour of receiving the
request, they need not be posted prior to being acted
on.
(8) We are adding a provision, at 37.6(e)(1)(iii), that
provides that in the event that a discount is being
requested for ancillary services that are not in
-9- Docket No. RM95-9-001
support of the Transmission Provider's provision of
basic transmission service, such request need not be
posted on the OASIS.
(9) We are renumbering 37.6(e)(1)(ii) as 37.6(e)(1)(iv)
and are expanding the information required to be posted
on the status of requests for transmission and
ancillary service.
(10) We are deleting the provision formerly found in
37.6(e)(1)(iii) and are revising 37.6(e)(3)(i)
because we no longer will allow the identity of parties
to transactions to be masked.
Additionally, we believe that any negotiation 12/
between a Transmission Provider and a potential customer should
take place on the OASIS, and should be visible to all market
participants, and we will revise our regulations to accomplish
this as soon as practicable. To this end, we direct the How
Working Group, by no later than June 2, 1997, to propose: (1)
any changes that might be necessitated to the Standards and
Protocols document; and (2) the earliest date when the industry
can meet such a requirement during Phase I.
We also are making nine minor revisions to 18 CFR Part 37.
These include: (1) amending the definition of wholesale merchant
function in 37.3; (2) amending 37.4(b)(5)(iii) and
37.6(g)(4) to require Transmission Providers to post on the OASIS
the information that they already are required to keep, detailing
the circumstances and manner in which they exercise their
discretion under any terms of the tariff; (3) substituting the
phrase sales made to any person for resale made by the wholesale
12/ Negotiation would only take place if the Transmission
Provider or potential customer seeks prices below the
ceiling prices set forth in the tariff.
-10- Docket No. RM95-9-001
merchant function or any affiliate for the phrase wholesale
purchases or sales made on behalf of its own power customers, or
those of an affiliate in 37.4(b)(5)(iv), to be consistent with
the revised definition of wholesale merchant function ; (4)
amending 37.6(b)(1) to clarify the meaning of the term
interconnection as used in the definition of posted path; (5)
amending 37.6(b)(3)(ii) to clarify that firm available
transmission capability (ATC) and nonfirm ATC for unconstrained
posted paths must be separately posted; (6) amending 37.6(e) to
clarify that the provision applies to requests for ancillary
service and that requests for service must be posted before the
Transmission Provider responds to the request; (7) amending
37.6(g)(3) to require that notices of transfers of personnel
posted on the OASIS as described in 37.4(b)(2) remain available
for the same time period as audit information in 37.7(b); (8)
amending 37.7(b) to shorten, from 90 days to 20 days, the time
during which ATC/total transmission capability (TTC) postings
must remain available for download on the OASIS (the data will,
however, remain available upon request for three years from the
date when they are first posted); and (9) removing 37.8,
because the compliance date for Part 37 has already passed.
In addition, we are requesting that the How Working Group
propose changes in the Standards and Protocols document and the
Data Dictionary by June 2, 1997 necessitated by the Commission's
revised discount policy and by our findings on various requests
for rehearing.
-11- Docket No. RM95-9-001
We will retain the provisions of Order No. 889 and 18 CFR
Part 37 in all other respects. Below, we address the provisions
of 18 CFR Part 37 in light of the issues raised in the requests
for rehearing.
B. SECTION 37.1 -- APPLICABILITY
1. Extent of the Commission's Authority to Impose
Standards of Conduct
In the OASIS Final Rule, the Commission determined that the
rules in Part 37 -- including the obligation to adopt standards
of conduct -- would apply to any public utility that owns,
operates, or controls facilities used for the transmission of
electric energy in interstate commerce. Among other things, we
concluded that we would not directly assert jurisdiction over
non-public utilities under 311 of the Federal Power Act (FPA)
to ensure compliance with OASIS requirements, including the
requirement to comply with the standards of conduct. Instead, we
are relying on the reciprocity provision of the Open Access pro
forma tariff that requires a non-public utility to offer
comparable transmission service to the Transmission Provider as a
condition of obtaining open access service. 13/
Rehearing Request
13/ We discuss below, in the next section of this order, issues
raised on rehearing that implicate the Commission's
authority to condition the use of public utility Open Access
pro forma tariffs on the provision of reciprocal
transmission services, including compliance with the
standards of conduct and OASIS requirements.
-12- Docket No. RM95-9-001
ConEd argues that the Commission lacks authority to issue
the standards of conduct requiring functional unbundling. 14/
Specifically, ConEd argues that the Commission has exceeded its
authority by requiring transmission providers to functionally
separate interstate electricity transmission and wholesale
merchant functions (wholesale sales and purchases of electricity
in interstate commerce). 15/ ConEd asserts that wholesale
purchases of electricity in interstate commerce on behalf of
native load customers are bundled retail electric service
transactions that are local distribution and not subject to the
Commission's authority.
Commission Conclusion
We agree with ConEd to the extent that when a utility uses
its own transmission system to transmit purchased power to retail
load customers we have no jurisdiction over the transmission that
is included in the bundled sale of power to the retail native
load. Upon further consideration, we conclude that our
definition of wholesale merchant function (in 37.3(e)) should
be modified to delete the phrase, . . . , or purchase for
resale, . . . . because this clause creates confusion and is not
necessary. When a utility purchases power for its retail native
load customers, this is not a sale for resale. In contrast, when
a utility purchases power for its wholesale native load, the
transmission of purchased power to the wholesale customer is
14/ ConEd Rehearing Request at pp. 2-6.
15/ ConEd Rehearing Request at p. 2.
-13- Docket No. RM95-9-001
really part of a transaction that includes a wholesale sale of
power to a third party. Our authority to require functional
unbundling of interstate electricity transmission and the
wholesale merchant function, as newly defined, is fully supported
in Order No. 888.
2. The Commission's Authority to Impose Reciprocity
Provision
In the OASIS Final Rule, we concluded that we will not
directly assert jurisdiction over non-public utilities under
311 of the FPA 16/ to ensure compliance with OASIS
requirements. We concluded that we would, instead, rely on the
reciprocity provision of the Open Access pro forma tariff that
requires a non-public utility to offer comparable transmission
service to the Transmission Provider as a condition of obtaining
open access service. We found that if a non-public utility
chooses to take open access service, and therefore is subject to
the Open Access pro forma tariff reciprocity provision, it also
is subject to the OASIS and standards of conduct requirements in
18 CFR Part 37, unless the Commission grants a waiver of the
reciprocity provision. The reciprocity provision announced in
the Open Access Final Rule does not require non-public utilities
to provide transmission access, but, instead, conditions the use
of public utilities' open access services on an agreement to
offer open access services in return.
Rehearing Requests
16/ 16 U.S.C. 825j.
-14- Docket No. RM95-9-001
A number of non-public utilities have raised arguments on
rehearing challenging the reciprocity provision. First, some
argue that, notwithstanding the Commission's discussion of this
issue in Order Nos. 888 and 889, the reciprocity provision is not
voluntary. 17/ Second, some argue that the Commission lacks
the authority to impose the reciprocity provision and that the
Commission is trying to accomplish indirectly what it lacks the
authority to do directly. 18/ Third, CAMU argues that the
Commission should defer imposing the reciprocity provision until
such time as the IRS clarifies the status of private use
limitations within the context of transmission access. 19/ NE
Public Power District objects that Order No. 889 contained scant
discussion of the Commission's authority to impose functional
unbundling and other requirements based on the reciprocity
provision. 20/
Other entities seeking rehearing argue that the Commission
did not go far enough in adopting and relying upon the
reciprocity provision for purposes of attaining compliance with
17/ See Requests for Rehearing of AL EC, NE Public Power
District, NRECA, and TDU Systems.
18/ See Requests for Rehearing of Redding, NE Public Power
District, NRECA, and TDU Systems.
19/ CAMU Rehearing Request at pp. 3-4.
20/ This issue was fully considered and addressed in Order No.
888. NE Public Power District also raises a related issue,
now moot, concerning possible conflicts between the
standards of conduct and state freedom of information laws.
Given that this issue concerns the confidentiality
provisions of 37.6(e), we will address this issue below in
section IV.G.8 of this order.
-15- Docket No. RM95-9-001
the OASIS and standards of conduct requirements. CCEM argues
that the Commission erred by failing to require nonjurisdictional
entities providing reciprocal service to comply with the OASIS
requirements. 21/
EEI argues that the reciprocity provision requires all non-
public utilities to functionally unbundle their transmission
systems, establish an OASIS, and fully comply with the OASIS
standards of conduct. Additionally, EEI advances a number of
proposals that would expand the reciprocity provision contained
in the Open Access Final Rule. 22/
Montana-Dakota argues that the reciprocity provision should
be expanded for non-public utilities. It argues that
cooperatives should not be able to construct barriers minimizing
their obligations under the reciprocity provision. 23/
Commission Conclusion
After consideration of the arguments made on rehearing, both
in this rulemaking proceeding and on rehearing of the Open Access
Final Rule, we continue to believe that it is appropriate to
condition the use of public utility open access tariffs on the
agreement of the tariff user to provide reciprocal access to the
Transmission Provider. Any eligible customer, including a non-
public utility, that takes advantage of open access transmission
tariff services should not be allowed to deny service or
21/ CCEM Rehearing Request at p. 10.
22/ EEI Rehearing Request at n.10 and pp. 2, 7-15.
23/ Montana-Dakota Rehearing Request at pp. 2-4.
-16- Docket No. RM95-9-001
otherwise discriminate against the open access provider.
Moreover, we continue to believe that, absent a waiver, the
obligation to provide reciprocal, non-discriminatory services
necessarily commits the customer of open access service, even if
not a public utility, to abide by the OASIS and standards of
conduct requirements.
Contrary to arguments raised on rehearing, we are not
requiring non-public utilities to provide transmission access.
Instead, we are conditioning the use of public utility open
access tariffs, by all customers including non-public utilities,
on an agreement to offer comparable (not unduly discriminatory)
services in return. It would not be in the public interest to
allow a non-public utility to take non-discriminatory
transmission service from a public utility at the same time that
it refuses to provide comparable service to the public utility.
Such a disparity would restrict the operation of robust
competitive markets and would harm the very ratepayers that
Congress has charged us to protect.
Similarly, it would not serve the public interest to compel
public utilities to have OASIS nodes and to functionally unbundle
their wholesale merchant functions from their transmission
operations and reliability functions, while allowing non-public
utilities that seek open access transmission from a public
utility to evade these responsibilities. 24/
24/ See South Carolina Public Service Authority (Santee Cooper),
75 FERC 61,209 (1996); Central Electric Cooperative, Inc.,
77 FERC 61,076 (1996).
-17- Docket No. RM95-9-001
Moreover, we have provided a mechanism, equally applicable
both to small public utilities and to small non-public utilities,
for them to obtain waivers of the OASIS and separation of
function requirements and the other reciprocity requirements.
25/
Turning to arguments that assert that the reciprocity
condition does not go far enough, we are unpersuaded that we
should further expand the reciprocity condition. In our view,
the reciprocity condition, as written, suffices to ensure
comparability and to avoid undue discrimination. We discuss this
matter more fully in Order No. 888-A.
3. Waiver Policy
The Open Access Final Rule provides that public utilities
may seek waivers for some or all of the requirements of the Open
Access Final Rule, including waiver of the standards of conduct
and OASIS requirements. Similarly, the Open Access Final Rule
provides that non-public utilities may seek waivers of the tariff
reciprocity provision as applied to them.
Rehearing Requests
APPA argues that the Commission should revise the waiver
standard for non-public utilities (the reciprocity provision) to
allow waivers when a non-public utility lacks market power or
25/ Moreover, as we discuss further below, see supra sections
IV.B.3 and V., the Commission has granted waivers to a
number of small non-public utilities from the requirements
to establish and maintain an OASIS and the requirement in
the standards of conduct to separate the wholesale merchant
function from the transmission operation and reliability
function.
-18- Docket No. RM95-9-001
where the cost of compliance exceeds the annual net revenues
expected to be received from transmission and ancillary services
under a reciprocity tariff. APPA further argues that, in such
circumstances, compliance with the requirements of the Open
Access and OASIS Final Rules would be anti-competitive. 26/
Similarly, CAMU argues that only dominant utilities are capable
of subverting the transmission market and that, therefore, only
such larger utilities should be burdened with the costs of
compliance. 27/
Blue Ridge argues that the Commission should clarify that a
waiver from compliance with the requirements of Order No. 888
also gives a waiver from compliance with the requirements of
Order No. 889. 28/
Indianapolis P&L argues that the Commission's criteria for
evaluating waiver requests are too rigid and that it probably
will be denied waiver even though it is a small system that lacks
transmission market power. 29/
26/ APPA Rehearing Request at pp. 9-11.
27/ CAMU Rehearing Request at pp. 2-3.
28/ Blue Ridge Rehearing Request at p. 39. We note that the
Commission only granted waiver of Order No. 889 requirements
to those public utilities that made a specific request for
waiver of those requirements. See infra n.33, First Waiver
Order, 76 FERC at 62,296-97.
29/ Indianapolis P&L's request for waiver was denied in the
First Waiver Order, infra n.33, see 76 FERC at 62,295.
Indianapolis P&L's request for rehearing in Docket No. OA96-
81-001 currently is pending.
-19- Docket No. RM95-9-001
Michigan Systems argue that small systems that lack market
power in transmission should be granted a blanket exemption from
compliance with the separation of functions requirement in the
OASIS standards of conduct, without the necessity for applying
for waivers on a case-by-case basis. 30/
Ohio Valley argues that the criteria in the Open Access
Final Rule for obtaining waivers from compliance with Order Nos.
888 and 889 are too stringent and should be revised to
accommodate waivers whenever justified. 31/ It argues that
control area operators should not be excluded from obtaining a
waiver of the Commission's Open Access requirements. Ohio Valley
adds that the waiver process is uncertain and that its 1953
agreement to supply power to the United States Department of
Energy should be grandfathered and exempted from compliance
with the requirements of Order Nos. 888 and 889.
TAPS argues that in areas of the country where a major
transmission owner elects to set up its own OASIS, in lieu of
participation in a regional OASIS, or refuses to allow smaller
utilities to participate in an OASIS, waivers should be granted
to the smaller utilities so that they are not forced to set up
their own OASIS sites, the costs of which would be unwarranted.
TAPS further argues that larger utilities that do not allow
smaller utilities to participate with them in a joint OASIS
30/ Michigan Systems Rehearing Request passim.
31/ Ohio Valley Rehearing Request at p. 12.
-20- Docket No. RM95-9-001
should not be able to deny service to those smaller utilities on
that basis. 32/
Commission Conclusion
Since issuance of the Open Access and OASIS Final Rules, the
Commission has issued a series of orders addressing specific
requests for waiver of all or some of the requirements of the
Open Access and OASIS Final Rules, including the requirements
under Order No. 889 to: (1) establish and maintain an OASIS; and
(2) comply with the standards of conduct (including the
requirement to separate the activities of, and restrict
communications between, employees performing wholesale merchant
functions and employees performing system operations and
reliability functions). 33/ The waiver standards enunciated
by the Commission apply to public utilities subject to the rules,
32/ See related issue, discussed in section IV.F below,
concerning the argument that Transmission Providers must
create regional OASIS nodes.
33/ See, e.g., Northern States Power Company (MI), et al., Order
on Requests by Public Utilities for Waivers of Order No. 888
and 889, 76 FERC 61,250 (1996) (First Waiver Order); order
on reh'g, Black Creek Hydro, Inc., et al., Order on
Rehearing and Granting Waivers of Order No. 889, 77 FERC
61,232 (1996) (Black Creek); Midwest Energy, Inc., et al.,
77 FERC 61,208 (1996) (Midwest); Soyland Power Cooperative
Association, et al., 78 FERC 61,095 (1997) (Soyland);
Dakota Electric Ass'n, et al., 78 FERC 61,117 (1997)
(Dakota). In addition, the Commission, in Central Electric
Cooperative, Inc., et al., 77 FERC 61,076 (1996), reh'g
pending (Central Electric); Dakota; and Niobrara Valley
Electric Membership Corporation, Docket Nos. OA96-146-001
and ER97-1412-000 (Niobrara), addressed various requests for
rulings on exemptions from and waivers of Order Nos. 888 and
889, on the basis that applicants are not public utilities
subject to the requirements of the Final Rules.
-21- Docket No. RM95-9-001
as well as to non-public utilities that seek waiver of the
reciprocity provision.
In Black Creek, the Commission announced modified standards
used to determine whether to grant waiver of Order Nos. 888 and
889. 34/ Under these modified standards, waiver of Order No.
889 would be appropriate: (1) if the applicant owns, operates,
or controls only limited and discrete transmission facilities
(rather than an integrated transmission grid); or (2) if the
applicant is a small public utility 35/ that owns, operates,
or controls an integrated transmission grid. With respect to the
second category, a waiver would not be available if the utility
is a member of a tight power pool, or other circumstances are
present which indicate that a waiver would not be justified.
36/ The Commission, in addressing situations where waiver is
granted, further stated that:
Waiver of the requirement to establish and
maintain an information system (i.e., an
OASIS) will be granted unless and until an
entity evaluating its transmission needs
complains that it could not get information
necessary to complete its evaluation. Waiver
of the standards of conduct will be granted
34/ To avoid confusion, we will discuss the waiver standards as
set out in Black Creek rather than in the First Waiver
Order, because Black Creek modified the First Waiver Order's
standards for waiver.
35/ To qualify as a small public utility, the applicant must
meet the Small Business Administration definition of a small
electric utility, i.e., one that is independently owned and
disposes of no more than 4 million MWh annually.
36/ Black Creek, 77 FERC at 61,941; see also Midwest, 77 FERC at
61,854 (elaborating on the exception where the applicant is
a member of a tight power pool).
-22- Docket No. RM95-9-001
unless and until an entity complains that a
public utility has used its access to
information about transmission to unfairly
benefit the public utility's own or the
public utility's affiliates' sales.
Compliance must be made within 60 days of the
complaint. [37/]
Thus, the Commission has developed waiver criteria that take
into account potential burdens on small entities and at the same
time balance the need to prevent undue discrimination and
affiliate abuse in interstate power markets. We believe that
this flexible waiver approach adequately addresses the concerns
raised on rehearing.
In response to the requests for rehearing of Indianapolis
P&L and Ohio Valley, this order on rehearing is not the proper
vehicle for a company to request a company-specific waiver.
Waivers are appropriately addressed on a case-by-case basis,
which permits the Commission to review the specific facts of each
waiver application and permits affected parties to intervene and
make their views known to the Commission. 38/
TAPS expresses a concern that larger utilities may not allow
smaller utilities to participate with them in a joint OASIS. We
do not believe that any revisions to the OASIS Final Rule are
necessary at this time to address TAPS' concern, because: (1) if
the OASIS for its particular geographic area is unavailable, a
37/ Black Creek, 77 FERC at 61,941 (citation to First Waiver
Order omitted).
38/ As noted above, supra n.29, Indianapolis P&L's specific
waiver request was addressed in the First Waiver Order and
is pending rehearing. To date, Ohio Valley has not filed a
specific request for waiver.
-23- Docket No. RM95-9-001
utility may always choose to participate in an OASIS for a
different region; 39/ (2) smaller utilities should be able to
meet their OASIS obligations cost-effectively by joining with
other small entities to hire the services of private vendors
collectively; and (3) as mentioned above, the Commission will
grant waivers of the OASIS requirements to small utilities under
proper circumstances.
Moreover, we do not currently have any evidence that larger
utilities will, in fact, attempt to exclude smaller utilities
from participating in their OASIS sites. In fact, all
indications are to the contrary.
Thus, while we are not taking any steps based on TAPS'
concerns, at this time, we will revisit this issue if it appears
that Commission action is appropriate. We would also entertain a
company-specific complaint that a larger utility is misusing the
reciprocity provision to improperly withhold transmission
service.
C. SECTION 37.2 -- PURPOSE
The requests for rehearing did not specifically address this
provision nor seek revision of this portion of the OASIS Final
Rule.
39/ We note that even though a majority of the OASIS nodes are
joint nodes, these nodes nevertheless report data on a
company-specific basis that is accessed using each company's
individual Internet World Wide Web (WWW) address. Thus, the
geographic location of the Transmission Provider is
irrelevant to locating data about that company's operations
on the Internet.
-24- Docket No. RM95-9-001
D. SECTION 37.3 -- DEFINITIONS
The OASIS Final Rule contains definitions of Transmission
Provider , Transmission Customer , Responsible Party ,
Reseller , Wholesale Merchant Function , and Affiliate .
40/ The requests for rehearing did not specifically address
these definitions nor seek revision of this portion of the OASIS
Final Rule. However, as discussed above, we are modifying the
definition of wholesale merchant function in response to
ConEd's request for rehearing or clarification.
E. SECTION 37.4 -- STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
In the OASIS Final Rule, we adopted standards of conduct
intended to accomplish four main objectives. First, we
prohibited Transmission Providers from giving preferential access
to information related to transmission prices and availability to
employees of the public utility, or any affiliate, engaged in
wholesale merchant functions. We accomplished this by: (a)
requiring that transmission-related information be made available
to all customers (including employees of the public utility, and
any affiliate, engaged in wholesale merchant functions) through
OASIS postings available at the same time and on an equal basis;
and (b) prohibiting the employees of Transmission Providers and
any affiliates from disclosing or obtaining non-public
40/ Additionally, 37.6(b)(1) provides definitions of Posted
Path , Constrained Posted Path , and Unconstrained Posted
Path as used in 37.6. As these additional terms were
defined in 37.6 of the OASIS Final Rule, we will discuss
suggestions to clarify these terms in sections IV.G.1 and
IV.G.2 below.
-25- Docket No. RM95-9-001
transmission-related information through communications not
posted on the OASIS. Thus, employees engaged in wholesale
merchant functions may only obtain information about transmission
prices and availability from postings on the OASIS or from public
sources equally available to all other customers.
Second, we mandated that employees engaged in system
operations and reliability functions must treat all customers in
a fair and impartial manner and may not give any preferential
treatment to the company's (or its affiliates') employees
conducting wholesale merchant functions. This requirement
includes not disclosing market information about a customer and
its activities to other customers in the course of responding to
requests for transmission service.
Third, we required the functional unbundling of the
transmission operations and wholesale merchant functions of
public utilities and their affiliates so that those employees
charged with system operations and reliability would be free to
operate the system impartially for the benefit of all customers,
including the Transmission Provider itself. 41/
Fourth, to ensure that the OASIS Final Rule would not
compromise reliability, we created an exemption, in emergency
41/ As explained in the OASIS Final Rule, functional unbundling
seeks to ensure that the same employee is not responsible
for performing both wholesale merchant functions and system
operation functions at the same time. See OASIS Final Rule,
61 FR at 21,744-48. These functions are to be performed by
separate employees and the standards of conduct provide that
they are prohibited from communicating with each other about
transmission-related matters unless they do so through the
OASIS. See 37.4(a) and 37.4(b).
-26- Docket No. RM95-9-001
circumstances affecting system reliability, that allows system
operators to take whatever steps are necessary to keep the system
in operation.
Finally, we warned that the standards of conduct are to be
interpreted consistent with common sense, prudence, and caution,
and that the burden is on entities subject to the rules to design
procedures and safeguards and to take all necessary actions to
ensure compliance. Those who have questions on these issues may
contact the Enforcement Task Force Hotline at 202-208-1390 to
obtain informal advice on implementing the standards of conduct.
1. Contacts Between Employees Providing Ancillary
Services and System Operators
The OASIS Final Rule defines the wholesale merchant
function at 37.3(e). The definition contains no specific
reference to, or exclusion of, ancillary services. In the Open
Access Final Rule, the Commission concluded that six ancillary
services must be included in an open access transmission tariff.
42/
Rehearing Request
42/ These are: (1) scheduling, system control and dispatch
service; (2) reactive supply and voltage control from
generation sources service; (3) regulation and frequency
response service; (4) energy imbalance service; (5)
operating reserve - spinning reserve service; and (6)
operating reserve - supplemental reserve service.
In the Open Access Final Rule, the Commission has determined
that the Transmission Provider must provide and the
Transmission Customer must purchase from the Transmission
Provider the first two services listed above, subject to
conditions set out in Order No. 888. The Transmission
Provider must offer the remaining four services to the
Transmission Customers upon request.
-27- Docket No. RM95-9-001
Allegheny argues that an employee of the Transmission
Provider who is responsible for providing customers with
ancillary services mandated by the Open Access Final Rule should
not, for that reason, be deemed to be a merchant employee
excluded from contact with system operators under Order No. 889.
43/
Commission Conclusion
We disagree with Allegheny's interpretation of the OASIS
standards of conduct. Under the standards of conduct, employees
who are responsible for providing ancillary services are not
(without regard to their actual job functions) uniformly deemed
to be, or not to be, wholesale merchant employees. To the
contrary, whether these employees are deemed to be wholesale
merchant employees, or not, depends on the nature of their job
functions.
The Transmission Provider's sale of ancillary services in
support of its provision of basic transmission service is not a
wholesale power merchant function for purposes of Order No. 889.
This is because the provision of ancillary services is essential
for providing basic transmission service. However, the sale of
ancillary service not in support of the Transmission Provider's
provision of basic transmission service is a wholesale merchant
function for purposes of Order No. 889. Thus, if an employee is
marketing an ancillary service independent of the Transmission
Provider's obligations to provide basic transmission service,
43/ Allegheny Rehearing Request at pp. 9-10.
-28- Docket No. RM95-9-001
then that employee would be providing a wholesale merchant
function and would be subject to the applicable requirements
pertaining to wholesale merchant employees under the standards of
conduct.
Therefore, we reject Allegheny's suggestion that our current
regulations categorically deem any employees involved in the
provision of ancillary services as not being wholesale merchant
employees, without regard to their actual job responsibilities.
2. Contacts Between Generation Control Employees and
Transmission Operations and Wholesale Merchant
Employees
Among other matters, the OASIS standards of conduct preclude
employees engaged in wholesale merchant functions from improperly
communicating with employees engaged in transmission system
operations or reliability functions. However, we did not extend
Order No. 888 or the OASIS Final Rule to require the corporate
unbundling of transmission and generation control functions or to
mandate the divestiture by Transmission Providers of their
generation assets.
Rehearing Request
CCEM argues that the Commission erred by not drafting the
standards of conduct to preclude generation control employees
from being a conduit for improper communications between
transmission operations personnel and wholesale merchant
personnel. 44/
Commission Conclusion
44/ CCEM Rehearing Request at pp. 10-11.
-29- Docket No. RM95-9-001
As we stated above, in our discussion of whether employees
responsible for providing ancillary services are to be deemed
wholesale merchant employees, what limitations are placed on an
employee's conduct under the standards of conduct depends on that
employee's actual job functions and activities, rather than that
employee's job title. 45/ In the same way, whom a generation
control employee may or may not communicate with depends on the
respective job functions of that generation control employee and
the employee(s) with whom he or she intends to communicate.
Generation control employees whose job responsibilities involve
wholesale merchant functions would be precluded from having
pertinent off-the-OASIS communications with employees performing
system operations and reliability functions.
Additionally, notwithstanding CCEM's concerns, the standards
of conduct already preclude any employee from acting as a conduit
for improper communications between transmission operations
employees and wholesale merchant employees. Furthermore, if
these activities were carried out by a non-employee (e.g., an
outside attorney or consultant), they nevertheless would
constitute a violation of the standards of conduct by the
involved transmission operations employee(s), the involved
wholesale merchant employee(s), and their employer. This being
the case, we reject CCEM's proposal as unnecessary.
45/ See supra discussion in section IV.E.1 above.
-30- Docket No. RM95-9-001
3. Monitoring the Standards of Conduct
The preamble's discussion of the standards of conduct and
the regulations at 37.4 are intentionally directed at the
responsibilities of the Transmission Providers subject to these
rules rather than the Commission's plans to monitor compliance
and pursue enforcement strategies.
Rehearing Requests
APPA and Blue Ridge argue that monitoring of the standards
of conduct is essential and that the Commission must establish
and publicize a plan to do so. 46/ APPA argues that reliance
on utility self monitoring is not sufficient.
Commission Conclusion
We agree with APPA and Blue Ridge that it is important for
the Commission to monitor compliance with the standards of
conduct carefully and that self monitoring may not be fully
sufficient to accomplish this. Accordingly, we are amending
37.4(b)(5)(iii) and 37.6(g)(4) to require the posting on the
OASIS of information from a Transmission Provider that details
the circumstances when it exercises its discretion in applying
any terms of the tariff (and which Transmission Providers already
are required to maintain pursuant to 37.4(b)(5)(iii)). This
will assist the Commission in monitoring whether the standards of
conduct are being met. Consistent with 37.7(b), which governs
the retention period for audit data, this information must remain
46/ APPA Rehearing Request at pp. 11-19, Blue Ridge Rehearing
Request at p. 39.
-31- Docket No. RM95-9-001
available for download on the OASIS for a specified period, and
must remain available upon request for three years from the date
when such information is first posted. 47/ We request that
the How Working Group propose the necessary template to be
included in the Standards and Protocols document.
As to APPA's and Blue Ridge's specific suggestions that we
should modify the OASIS Final Rule to address the Commission's
oversight plans and functions, we do not believe that this would
be appropriate. Although the Commission is well aware of the
importance of its enforcement responsibilities, and will remain
vigilant in reviewing the operation of OASIS sites and compliance
with the standards of conduct, the purpose of the OASIS Final
Rule is to detail the responsibilities of the regulated community
and not those of the Commission.
4. Adequacy of Emergency Exception
As explained above, the OASIS standards of conduct include
an exception, in emergency circumstances affecting system
reliability, that allows system operators to take whatever steps
are necessary to keep the system in operation.
Rehearing Request
El Paso argues that the standards of conduct's emergency
exception is inadequate; contingencies may arise daily that
47/ Under 37.7(b), all audit data currently must remain
available for download for 90 days. Later in this order, we
shorten the retention period for making ATC/TTC postings
available for download to 20 days, with the data to be made
available upon request for three years. See discussion in
section IV.H below.
-32- Docket No. RM95-9-001
require a system operator to react promptly to unanticipated
losses of generation units. Therefore, operators should be
allowed to buy and sell current hour and next hour power (to
preserve system reliability). El Paso does not oppose the
separation of functions as applied to longer-term transactions
(i.e., transactions involving transmission service beyond the
current hour and next hour). 48/
Commission Conclusion
We reject the proposal to allow operators to buy for resale
at wholesale and sell at wholesale next hour power on a routine
basis, without regard for the separation of functions required by
the standards of conduct. We find this proposal too broad and
find that it has too much potential for abuse. However, as
explained more fully below, the regulations do not dictate what
group of employees is to have responsibility for making purchases
on behalf of bundled retail customers. For example, the
transmission operations and reliability function may be assigned
responsibility for making purchases on behalf of bundled retail
customers.
5. Short-Term Economy Energy Purchases
FIT Utilities do not object generally to functional
unbundling; however, they argue that the system operator should
be allowed to make short-term economy energy purchases in order
to maintain system reliability. 49/ FIT Utilities further
48/ El Paso Rehearing Request at pp. 1-4.
49/ FIT Utilities Rehearing Request at pp. 39-40.
-33- Docket No. RM95-9-001
argue that, while the OASIS Final Rule does not require the
physical separation of transmission and generation dispatchers,
it does effectively rewrite generation dispatchers' jobs to
exclude the purchase for resale and sale at wholesale of energy
in hourly interchange markets. FIT Utilities argue that a
generation dispatcher needs to know loads on transmission lines
on an instantaneous basis to assess whether to increase or
decrease outputs from particular generation facilities. FIT
Utilities argue that generators are often run, not for energy,
but for voltage support or to otherwise stabilize the
transmission system.
They argue that, in addition to reliability concerns, system
operators also worry about keeping transactions economical. They
argue that separating the functions relating to short-term energy
purchases (for resale) makes this task harder, at a substantial
cost to consumers. They continue that allowing a dispatcher to
buy power would not hurt competition, as long as the dispatcher
cannot also sell power. 50/ They add that if a dispatcher
buys power that offsets higher cost utility generated power, this
helps everyone.
For these reasons, FIT Utilities argue that the OASIS Final
Rule should be revised to retain a prohibition against a
dispatcher selling power while allowing the dispatcher to buy
power. FIT Utilities argue that, at a minimum, the dispatcher
should be able to buy power in hourly economic energy markets to
50/ FIT Utilities Rehearing Request at p. 42.
-34- Docket No. RM95-9-001
serve load. 51/ They argue that if the Commission has a
concern that this would somehow be anti-competitive, then a
utility should be allowed to set up a computer system to make
such purchases automatically. They argue that the Commission
should be concerned with both reliability and price and should
aim for the lowest cost supply possible.
Commission Conclusion
The standards of conduct's separation of functions currently
prohibit a Transmission Provider's employees engaged in
transmission system operations and reliability functions from
giving preference to wholesale purchases or sales made on behalf
of its own wholesale customers or those of affiliates. The
standards of conduct do not, however, dictate whether bundled
retail merchant functions are to be grouped with the wholesale
merchant function or with the transmission operations and
reliability function.
Thus, FIT Utilities' request to allow dispatchers to buy
power to serve retail load is consistent with the regulations.
As discussed above, the regulations do not prohibit Transmission
Providers from assigning the responsibility for making purchases
to serve bundled retail customers to the transmission operations
and reliability function.
To avoid any confusion, we are modifying 37.4(b)(5)(iv) to
substitute the phrase sales for resale made by the wholesale
merchant function or any affiliate for the phrase wholesale
51/ FIT Utilities Rehearing Request at p. 43.
-35- Docket No. RM95-9-001
purchases or sales made on behalf of its own power customers, or
those of an affiliate in 37.4(b)(5)(iv).
Moreover, nothing in the standards of conduct prohibits a
public utility subject to the rule from arranging to have the
same data about the company s generation sources and load
simultaneously fed to both transmission system operators and
merchant employees. Thus, if the company elects to have
wholesale merchant employees perform the function of making
purchases to serve bundled retail native load, this can be done
without necessitating any change in the standards of conduct.
Data received by system operators about the activities of third
parties may not be conveyed to wholesale merchant employees
except through postings on the OASIS equally available to all
OASIS users.
6. Tight Pools
NY MU argues that the Commission erred in not requiring
operational unbundling, at least for tight pools, which NY MU
asserts includes requiring that the transmission component of
retail rates be treated as if the rates were based on the use of
the pool-wide pro forma tariff of the Open Access Final Rule.
52/
Commission Conclusion
52/ NY MU Rehearing Request at pp. 5, 7. See Open Access pro
forma tariff at p. 5.
-36- Docket No. RM95-9-001
As further discussed in Order No. 888-A, 53/ the
Commission stands by its decision in the Open Access Final Rule
that functional unbundling, along with the flexible safeguards
contained in the Final Rule, is a reasonable and workable means
of assuring non-discriminatory open access transmission. The
Commission has not found it necessary to adopt a more intrusive
and potentially more costly approach at this time based on
speculative allegations that functional unbundling may not work
and that more severe measures may be needed.
7. Clarification of 37.4(b)(5)(iv)
As modified above, 37.4(b)(5)(iv) requires that a
Transmission Provider not, through its tariffs or otherwise, give
preference to sales made to any person for resale made by the
wholesale merchant function or by any affiliate, over the
interests of any other wholesale customer in matters relating to
the sale of wholesale transmission service.
Rehearing Request
SoCal Edison asks the Commission to clarify that the OASIS
rule ( 37.4(b)(5)(iv)) was not intended to require the
Transmission Provider or network customer to charge itself for
transmission for its economy energy purchases or to assign to
those purchases the same curtailment priority assigned to other
non-network, non-firm point-to-point transactions. 54/
53/ See Order No. 888-A at section IV.A.
54/ SoCal Edison Rehearing Request at p. 24. On July 18, 1996,
SoCalGas filed a request for clarification responsive to
(continued...)
-37- Docket No. RM95-9-001
Commission Conclusion
Turning first to the narrow issue raised by SoCal Edison's
request for rehearing, we clarify that 37.4(b)(5)(iv) was
intended to be consistent with the Open Access pro forma tariff
provisions of Order No. 888. Moreover, we intended that the
question raised by SoCal Edison would be answered by reference to
the provisions of the Open Access pro forma tariff. Thus,
37.4(b)(5)(iv) does not require the Transmission Provider or
network customer to charge itself for transmission for its
economy energy purchases. Nor does it require that they assign
to those purchases the same curtailment priority assigned to
other non-network, non-firm point-to-point transactions. Under
the Open Access pro forma tariff, if purchases are for bundled
retail sales, then the Transmission Provider is not required to
54(...continued)
SoCal Edison's rehearing request, which argues that
37.4(b)(5)(iv), together with the Open Access Final Rule,
provide for comparability and that: a Transmission
Provider is not entitled to accord itself special priority,
special services, or special prices, merely because it owns
the transmission facilities, and the Transmission Provider
is not permitted to import wholesale power for free ;
however, the Transmission Provider may enjoy any priorities
or advantages provided to it and similarly situated
customers by the express terms of its transmission tariff.
SoCalGas' arguments overlook that SoCal Edison itself
concedes that if 37.4(b)(5)(iv) is interpreted in harmony
with Commission precedent, it would: operate to ensure
that the Transmission Provider would not give preference to
its own purchases and sales over that of other similarly
situated customers (e.g., by assigning a higher curtailment
priority to its own economy energy purchases than it would
assign to an identical economy energy purchase by a network
customer). Thus, the issues raised in SoCalGas' request
for clarification are not before us.
-38- Docket No. RM95-9-001
charge itself for its economy energy purchases. By contrast, if
the purchases are for wholesale sales, then the Transmission
Provider must charge itself for the transmission. The same
delineation would also apply to curtailment priority.
Moreover, we clarify that 37.4(b)(5)(iv) was not intended
to rewrite the rules regarding utilities' purchases and
priorities for bundled retail customers, nor to set aside the
rules prescribed in section 1.11 of the Open Access pro forma
tariff. 55/
8. Discounts
The issue of what discounts must be provided by a
Transmission Provider who offers a discount to its affiliates or
its own wholesale merchant function was addressed in the Open
Access Final Rule. The matter also was discussed in the OASIS
Final Rule, but only to the extent that it related to what
information must be posted on the OASIS. 56/ In
37.4(b)(5)(v), we mandated that when a Transmission Provider
offers a discount to its wholesale merchant function or any
affiliate, then it must, at the same time, post on the OASIS an
55/ Section 1.11 of the Open Access pro forma tariff is also the
subject of a number of requests for rehearing that are
addressed in Order No. 888-A at section IV.C.1.
56/ In Order No. 889, we found that if a Transmission Provider
offers a discount to an affiliate, or attributes a
discounted transmission service rate to its own wholesale
transactions, then the Transmission Provider must, at the
same time, post on the OASIS an offer to provide the same
discount to all eligible customers. If a Transmission
Provider offers discounts to non-affiliates, it must offer
to do so on a basis that is not unduly discriminatory.
-39- Docket No. RM95-9-001
offer to provide the same discount to all Transmission Customers
on the same path and on all unconstrained transmission paths.
57/ The posting requirement corresponding to this obligation
to offer discounts was contained in 37.6(c)(3). We also found,
in 37.6(c)(3), that discounts offered to non-affiliates must be
posted within 24 hours of when available transmission capability
(ATC) is adjusted in response to the transaction.
The requests for rehearing address both: (1) what discounts
must be offered; and (2) what postings must accompany discount
offers. As explained in Order No. 888-A, we have decided to
revise our policy on discounts of transmission services, and to
apply this same policy, with the exception concerning paths, to
ancillary services provided by the Transmission Provider in
support of its provision of basic transmission service. To
implement this revised policy, we are making changes to the
standards of conduct and to the posting of discounts under
37.6. We address changes to the standards of conduct here, and
changes to 37.6 in section IV.G.6 below.
Under our revised discount policy, three principal
requirements are appropriate. First, any offer of a discount for
transmission and/or ancillary services made by the Transmission
Provider must be announced to all potential customers solely by
posting on the OASIS. This requirement, which will ensure that
57/ In Order No. 888-A, we are addressing arguments that we
should revise the requirement to offer the same discount to
all Transmission Customers on the same path and on all
unconstrained transmission paths.
-40- Docket No. RM95-9-001
all potential Transmission Customers under the Open Access pro
forma tariff will have equal access to discount information, will
guard against the Transmission Provider's wholesale merchant
function or an affiliate gaining an unfair timing advantage
concerning the availability of discounts.
Second, we will require that any customer-initiated requests
for discounts of transmission and/or ancillary services occur
solely by posting on the OASIS, regardless of whether the
customer is the Transmission Provider's wholesale merchant
function, an affiliate, or a non-affiliate. We will permit
customer-initiated requests for discounts but will require that
such requests be visible (via posting on the OASIS) to all market
participants.
Third, we will require that, once the Transmission Provider
and customer agree to a discounted transaction for transmission
and/or ancillary services, the details be immediately posted on
the OASIS. This requirement will be equally applicable
regardless of whether the customer is the Transmission Provider's
wholesale merchant function, an affiliate, or a non-affiliate.
Additionally, we believe that any negotiation between a
Transmission Provider and a potential customer should take place
on the OASIS, and should be visible to all market participants,
and we will revise our regulations to accomplish this as soon as
practicable. To this end, we direct the How Working Group, by no
later than June 2, 1997, to propose: (1) whatever changes are
needed to the Standards and Protocols document; and (2) the
-41- Docket No. RM95-9-001
earliest date when the industry can meet such a requirement
during Phase I.
In 37.4(b)(5)(v) and 37.4(b)(5)(vi), we required
Transmission Providers to post on the OASIS any offers they made
to their wholesale merchant function or to their affiliates of a
discounted price for transmission services or ancillary services.
We are now deleting these provisions because under our revised
discount policy, the distinction between discounts to affiliates
and discounts to non-affiliates has been abandoned.
As discussed above, we are addressing the modifications to
the posting requirements in 37.6 in Section IV.G.6 below.
F. SECTION 37.5 -- OBLIGATIONS OF TRANSMISSION PROVIDERS
AND RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
In the OASIS regulations, the Commission requires
Transmission Providers to operate an OASIS, either individually
or jointly with other Transmission Providers. The Transmission
Provider may delegate this responsibility to a Responsible Party
such as another Transmission Provider, an Independent System
Operator, a Regional Transmission Group, a Regional Reliability
Council, or a third-party operator. Nevertheless, each
Transmission Provider remains responsible for compliance,
regardless of whether it establishes its own OASIS or
participates in a joint OASIS.
Rehearing Requests
TAPS and TDU Systems argue that the Commission should
require Transmission Providers to establish a regional OASIS
because individual utility OASIS sites are inefficient. They
-42- Docket No. RM95-9-001
contend that, as the number of OASIS sites increases, OASIS
postings become less meaningful and the accomplishments of the
OASIS Final Rule lessen. 58/
Commission Conclusion
At this juncture, the Commission continues to believe it
appropriate to encourage, but not require, regional OASIS sites.
It is the Commission s understanding that most utilities are
participating in regional OASIS sites. This issue can be
revisited in Phase II of OASIS, if a significant number of
utilities fail to join a regional OASIS and this results in
significant inefficiency in bulk power markets.
G. SECTION 37.6 -- INFORMATION TO BE POSTED ON AN OASIS
1. Definition of Posted Path
Section 37.6(b)(1)(i) defines a posted path as: (1) any
control area to control area interconnection; (2) any path for
which service is denied, curtailed or interrupted for more than
24 hours in the past 12 months; and (3) any path for which a
customer requests the posting of ATC or total transmission
capability (TTC). For posted paths requested by customers, the
paths must be posted for 180 days and the posting must continue
after that until 180 days elapse from the most recent request for
service over the path.
Rehearing Requests
58/ TAPS Rehearing Request at pp. 8-9 and TDU Systems Rehearing
Request at p. 85.
-43- Docket No. RM95-9-001
CCEM argues that the Commission erred by requiring posting
of ATC solely at interfaces between control areas. CCEM further
argues that the Commission should require the posting of paths
across control areas. 59/
MAPP argues that the Commission should reconsider the
requirement to post ATC between control areas or, in the
alternative, should grant it a waiver of this requirement. MAPP
suggests that posted paths should be defined as paths between
zones determined by transmission constraints. MAPP argues that
defining posted paths in this manner would be more consistent
with the MAPP regional flow-based transmission arrangement.
60/
EEI asks the Commission to revise the criteria for a
customer-requested posted path. EEI argues that customers should
have to make a service request over the path within 180 days of
asking that the path be a posted path or face a penalty. 61/
Commission Conclusion
The Commission will not require the posting of all paths
across control areas, since customers can request to have ATC and
TTC posted for any path. Given that customers can request to
have ATC and TTC posted for any path, adopting CCEM's proposal
would burden OASIS sites with a very large number of posted paths
that may have little commercial value.
59/ CCEM Rehearing Request at pp. 7-8.
60/ MAPP Rehearing Request at pp. 4-10.
61/ EEI Rehearing Request at p. 53.
-44- Docket No. RM95-9-001
As to MAPP's request to drop the requirement for posting ATC
for paths between control areas, MAPP s concern appears to relate
to business relationships particular to the MAPP agreement.
MAPP's request for a waiver is not based on a lack of traffic
over its system. It is based on the fact that MAPP's control
areas do not correspond to the service territories of its members
(MAPP has 26 utilities and 14 control areas). Some of its
control areas cover the generation of more than one utility.
Other control areas overlap the same geographic area, with each
control area covering the generation of a separate utility.
Under MAPP's proposal, it will provide pool-wide
transmission service based on a MW mile methodology. It proposes
to determine the transmission availability for known constrained
interfaces or paths and assess the impact on its member systems
of each transaction based on the POD and POR for each
transaction. MAPP argues that the Open Access Final Rule was
intended to accommodate flow based pricing methods and that,
under the circumstances, it makes sense for its member systems to
make postings for area to area interfaces rather than control
area to control area interfaces. MAPP argues that we should
either change our rules for posting between control areas or
grant it a waiver.
After reviewing MAPP's arguments, we do not believe that it
would be appropriate to modify the ATC posting requirements to
address a MAPP-specific issue. However, the Commission will
grant MAPP a limited waiver of the control area to control area
-45- Docket No. RM95-9-001
ATC/TTC posting requirement (in 37.6(b)(1)(i)) based on the
particular circumstances presented by the MAPP system. This
waiver should not harm Transmission Customers because MAPP
provides pool wide transmission service using a flow based
(single MW-mile) pricing methodology for the entire system and
proposes to determine transmission availability for all known
constrained interfaces or paths. Moreover, this waiver only
applies to postings for intra-MAPP interfaces. MAPP will still
be required to post ATC and TTC for control area to control area
paths that connect its member systems with neighboring
transmission systems. Finally, MAPP customers can always request
that ATC/TTC be posted for a specific path including a control
area to control area path (in which case MAPP would be required
to post the information for the path on its OASIS node).
Turning to EEI's suggested limitations on customers
requesting that paths be posted, we find that requiring a
customer to request service over any path that it asks to be
posted places too heavy a burden on customers. However, the
Commission may reconsider this requirement if we find that
customers abuse the system by requesting postings for too many
paths over which no requests for service are made.
2. Definition of interconnection
Posted path is defined in 37.6, in part, as any control
area to control area interconnection. However, the regulation
does not provide a definition of interconnection .
Rehearing Request
-46- Docket No. RM95-9-001
EEI and Public Service Co of CO ask the Commission to
clarify that the term interconnection , in the definition of
posted path in 37.6, includes lines connecting two systems or
control areas rather than just one line. 62/
Commission Conclusion
To avoid any confusion, we clarify that the term
interconnection in the definition of posted path means all
facilities connecting two adjacent control areas and we are
amending 37.6 accordingly. This is consistent with the
definition of interconnection in NERC s Glossary of Terms:
the facilities that connect two systems or Control Areas.
63/
3. ATC Supporting Information
The OASIS regulations require that the Responsible Party
make all data used to calculate ATC and TTC for any constrained
path publicly available within one week of the ATC/TTC posting.
a. Disclosure of Data Supporting Calculations of
ATC and TTC
Rehearing Request
EEI argues that the requirement in 37.6(b)(2)(ii) to
disclose data supporting calculations of ATC and TTC provides
competitors with backdoor access to sensitive proprietary
information. It claims that the Commission intended to allow
companies to keep confidential information such as generation run
62/ EEI Rehearing Request at p. 48 and Public Service Co of CO
Rehearing Request at pp. 1-2.
63/ NERC s Glossary of Terms, August 1996.
-47- Docket No. RM95-9-001
status and the maintenance schedules for generation and
transmission. 64/
Commission Conclusion
EEI is correct that the Commission declined in the OASIS
Final Rule to require the posting of information about the run
status of generation and transmission facilities. However, EEI
incorrectly attributes the Commission s decision to a finding on
the claimed proprietary nature of this information. The
Commission did not require the same-time posting of facility
status information because the Commission did not believe this
information was needed for Phase I implementation. The OASIS
Final Rule states that the Commission may reconsider the issue in
Phase II.
On rehearing, EEI argues that the same considerations about
commercial sensitivity that led the Commission to decline to
order the same-time posting of facility status also dictate that
this information should not be divulged as part of the data
supporting ATC calculations. We reject this argument for three
reasons. First, as shown above, EEI's argument is based on a
false premise as to why the Commission declined to order the
same-time posting of information on facility run status.
Second, even if, arguendo, we accepted EEI's contention that
the same-time posting of facility run status is commercially
sensitive, this still would not suffice to show that making ATC
supporting information available on request and after seven days
64/ EEI Rehearing Request at pp. 49-52.
-48- Docket No. RM95-9-001
would have any adverse competitive impact. Whatever commercial
sensitivity the information might have would be greatly
diminished by the fact that seven days need to elapse before a
request for the information can be made. In our view, this delay
ensures that no realistic concern remains about the competitive
consequences of releasing this information.
Finally, the purpose of ATC supporting information is to
ensure that Transmission Customers have confidence in ATC/TTC
postings. The OASIS and the Commission s functional unbundling
policy depend on customers being able to rely upon the accuracy
of ATC postings. The availability of ATC supporting information
is essential for building and maintaining this confidence. Thus,
the concerns raised by EEI about commercial sensitivity are, in
our judgment, outweighed by the public interest served by making
this information available, upon request, after seven days. The
Commission will not further restrict the availability of
information needed to support ATC/TTC calculations and this
information will continue to be available to customers upon
request after seven days.
b. Disclosure of Data on Nonfirm ATC
Rehearing Request
EEI also argues against disclosing supporting data on
nonfirm ATC because it would not exist but for the collection of
data to calculate firm ATC and TTC. 65/
Commission Conclusion
65/ EEI Rehearing Request at p. 52.
-49- Docket No. RM95-9-001
If, as EEI claims, data supporting the calculation of
nonfirm ATC does not exist in an independent form and is a
residual of calculating firm ATC, then requiring a Transmission
Provider to document how it calculates nonfirm ATC should be
relatively simple and should not require much additional
information. Therefore, the Commission requires that supporting
information for firm and nonfirm information be available as
required in 37.6(b)(2)(ii).
c. Time Limits for Disclosure of Utility
Generation Data
In the OASIS Final Rule, the Commission rejected arguments
by NUCOR that the Commission should require data on generation
costs to be posted on OASIS on a same-time basis. 66/
Rehearing Request
On rehearing, NUCOR argues again that the Commission should
require same-time disclosure of utility generation data used for
economic dispatch. 67/
Commission Conclusion
In the OASIS Final Rule, we rejected the argument that we
should require the same-time disclosure of utility generation
data used for economic dispatch based on a balancing of the need
66/ See OASIS Final Rule, 61 FR at 21,746. See also OASIS Final
Rule, 61 FR at 21,754-55, where we decided not to require
the posting of generator run status. Although the OASIS
Final Rule does not require the posting of utility
generation data, per se, this data may be required to be
reported, after-the-fact, as part of the Transmission
Provider's supporting data for ATC calculations.
67/ NUCOR Rehearing Request at pp. 15-18.
-50- Docket No. RM95-9-001
for the information, the claimed commercial sensitivity of the
information, and the desire to avoid, to the extent possible,
having public utilities reporting generation data that their
competitors may not be required to report. We concluded that the
information was not necessary and that during Phase I we would
limit OASIS postings to essentials.
On rehearing, NUCOR attempts to buttress its argument by
pointing out that utilities will face financial pressure to
maintain or enhance their market share in electric generation and
that the Commission's enforcement of the standards of conduct
could be enhanced by requiring the same-time disclosure of
generation data. NUCOR expresses the concern that after-the-fact
complaints, unearthed based on a review of audit files, may be
neither feasible nor practical.
NUCOR's arguments about discriminatory treatment are not
new. They highlight the need for the Commission and other OASIS
users to review this information to ensure that system operators
have not conducted system operations in violation of the OASIS
standards of conduct. NUCOR argues that only by requiring the
same-time disclosure of utility generation data used for economic
dispatch can we be sure that unduly preferential treatment by
means of a Transmission Provider's own generation will not occur.
We do not quarrel with the possibility of affiliate abuse raised
by NUCOR. However, NUCOR still has not persuaded us that it is
necessary to post these data. If experience shows that the
-51- Docket No. RM95-9-001
concerns raised by NUCOR are a significant problem, we can
consider further actions in the future. 68/
d. Reporting of Network Service Usage
Rehearing Request
CCEM argues that the Commission erred by not requiring
Transmission Providers to report network service usage monthly.
69/
Commission Conclusion
CCEM does not state what it means by monthly network service
usage or explain why the Transmission Provider should be required
to report the data. In any event, we note that the current
measure of network usage is load (i.e., billing is based on load-
ratio usage). To the extent that utilities use the monthly load
data of network customers in calculating ATC, utilities will
include load data in the ATC/TTC supporting information required
in 37.6(b)(2)(ii).
4. Posting Firm and Nonfirm ATC Separately
Section 37.6(b)(3) of the OASIS regulations addresses the
posting of ATC and TTC for constrained and unconstrained posted
paths. For constrained posted paths, the regulations contain
separate posting requirements for firm and nonfirm ATC. For
68/ As to NUCOR's contention that after-the-fact review of
utility generation data would be ineffectual, we note that
if we required the contemporaneous posting of such
information on the OASIS (as proposed by NUCOR), our review
of any complaint filed as a result of such information would
still be conducted after-the-fact.
69/ CCEM Rehearing Request at p. 10.
-52- Docket No. RM95-9-001
unconstrained posted paths, the posting requirements for firm and
nonfirm ATC are the same. Section 37.6(b)(3)(ii) does not
specifically mention firm and nonfirm ATC.
Rehearing Requests
CCEM and the EPRI/NERC Working Group argue that the
Commission erred by failing to require the separate posting of
firm ATC and nonfirm ATC for unconstrained posted paths. 70/
Commission Conclusion
The regulations inadvertently left out a reference to firm
and nonfirm ATC in the posting requirements for unconstrained
posted paths. The regulations at 37.6(b)(3)(ii) will be
modified to correct this and to clarify that firm and nonfirm ATC
for unconstrained paths, like firm and nonfirm ATC for
constrained paths, must be posted separately.
5. Minimum Term of Firm Point-to-Point Transmission
Service
Section 13.1 of the Open Access Final Rule's pro forma
tariff specifies that the minimum required term for Firm Point-
to-Point Transmission Service is one day. 71/ By contrast,
37.6(b)(3)(i) of the OASIS regulations requires the posting of
70/ CCEM Rehearing Request at p. 5 and EPRI/NERC Working Group
Rehearing Request at p. 9. For purposes of submitting their
request for rehearing, the How Working Group and the What
Working Group combined their efforts and submitted a joint
request for rehearing on behalf of the Industry Management
Process on How to Implement Transmission Services
Information Networks (EPRI/NERC Working Group).
71/ In Order No. 888-A, the Commission addresses the issue of
reducing the minimum term for firm point-to-point
transmission service from one day to one hour.
-53- Docket No. RM95-9-001
firm and nonfirm ATC on constrained paths for the next hour and
for the next 168 hours (i.e., for the next week).
Rehearing Requests
CCEM argues that the Commission erred by not requiring
Transmission Providers to offer hourly firm transmission
service. 72/ CCEM argues that, if the Commission agrees to
change the Open Access pro forma tariff to allow for hourly firm
transmission service, then the requirement to post hourly
transmission service requests on the OASIS should be deferred
until the reliability of OASIS sites is established.
EPRI/NERC Working Group argues that the posting of ATC and
other information should be consistent with a utility s Open
Access pro forma tariff. They argue that, as the minimum term
for firm ATC is one day under the Open Access pro forma tariff,
firm ATC should only be required to be posted daily instead of
hourly. Hourly firm ATC would be posted only if it is offered
under a revised Open Access tariff. 73/
Commission Conclusion
The OASIS regulations currently require the posting of
hourly firm ATC even though the shortest mandated term for firm
transmission service under the Open Access pro forma tariff is
one day. The Commission believes hourly posting provides useful
information to customers about the availability of daily service
72/ CCEM Rehearing Request at pp. 3-4.
73/ EPRI/NERC Working Group Rehearing Request at p. 9.
-54- Docket No. RM95-9-001
and the likelihood of curtailment during particular hours during
the day.
If a Transmission Provider voluntarily offers hourly firm
service in its Open Access pro forma tariff, it must offer the
service through postings on its OASIS. Section 37.6(c)(1)
requires Transmission Providers to post prices and a summary of
the terms and conditions associated with all transmission
products offered to Transmission Customers. [Emphasis added].
The OASIS regulations do not, however, control what services must
be provided by Transmission Providers. This is covered by the
Open Access Final Rule.
6. Posting of Discounts
Under the OASIS Final Rule, 37.6(c)(3) of the OASIS
regulations requires a Transmission Provider to post (within 24
hours of its adjustment of its ATC calculation) any discounts on
transmission service given to non-affiliated customers. This
posting was required to remain on the OASIS for 30 days.
Rehearing Requests
EPRI/NERC Working Group asks the Commission to clarify that
the purpose of the requirement in 37.6(c)(3) to post discount
information for 30 days is to record the discount and does not
constitute a continuing offer of a discount. They suggest
dropping this requirement since, under 37.7, audit data
(including data on discounts) must be recorded and retained.
74/
74/ EPRI/NERC Working Group Rehearing Request at p. 10.
-55- Docket No. RM95-9-001
Commission Conclusion
As discussed above in Section IV.E.8, the Commission has
adopted a new discounting policy, which is more fully elaborated
in Order No. 888-A. This new discounting policy necessitates a
number of changes to the OASIS posting requirements.
We have revised and moved the text of 37.6(c)(3) to
37.6(c)(4) and have substituted a new 37.6(c)(3) that requires
that any offer of a discount by the Transmission Provider for
transmission service must be announced to all potential customers
solely by posting on the OASIS.
We have revised the section now designated as 37.6(c)(4)
to no longer treat the posting of transmission service
transactions involving the Transmission Provider's wholesale
merchant function or affiliates differently from the posting of
transactions involving non-affiliates. However, we will require
that transactions involving the Transmission Provider's wholesale
merchant function or affiliates be identified. The 24-hour delay
in posting non-affiliate discounts has been dropped. All
transactions for transmission service, agreed to between a
Transmission Provider and a customer, regardless of whether they
involve a discount or not, must be posted at the time when ATC
must be adjusted in response to the transaction. We also have
expanded the list of information about the transaction required
to be posted.
We have revised and moved the text of 37.6(d)(2) to
37.6(d)(3) and have substituted a new 37.6(d)(2) that requires
-56- Docket No. RM95-9-001
that any offer of a discount by the Transmission Provider for
ancillary service in support of the Transmission Provider's
provision of transmission service must be announced to all
potential customers solely by posting on the OASIS.
We have revised the section now designated as 37.6(d)(3)
to no longer treat the posting of ancillary service transactions
involving the Transmission Provider's wholesale merchant function
or affiliates differently from the posting of transactions
involving non-affiliates. However, we will require that
transactions involving Transmission Provider's wholesale merchant
function or affiliates be identified. The 24-hour delay in
posting non-affiliate discounts has been dropped. All
transactions for ancillary service, agreed to between a
Transmission Provider and a customer, regardless of whether they
involve a discount or not, must be posted on the OASIS at the
time when ATC must be adjusted in response to an associated
transmission service transaction, if any. We also have expanded
the list of information about the transaction required to be
posted.
We have revised 37.6(e)(1)(i) to require that, with the
exception of next-hour service, requests for transmission and
ancillary service must be posted prior to the Transmission
Provider responding to these requests. This will ensure that
other customers can observe any discounts being requested before
they are acted on. We also are requiring that all postings of
-57- Docket No. RM95-9-001
requests be made comparably. We are making this revision to
prevent discriminatory practices.
We are revising 37.6(e)(1)(ii) to expand the information
required to be posted on the status of requests for transmission
and ancillary service to include the information required in
37.6(c)(4) and 37.6(d)(3).
We are deleting the provision formerly found at
37.6(e)(1)(iii) and are revising 37.6(e)(3)(i) because, under
the Commission's new discounting policy, we no longer will allow
the identity of parties to be masked.
We are adding a new provision, at 37.6(e)(1)(iii), that
provides that in the event that a discount is being requested for
ancillary services that are not in support of a basic
transmission service being provided by the Transmission Provider,
such request need not be posted on the OASIS. We add this
provision because we are limiting our revisions relating to the
posting of discounts for ancillary services to those ancillary
services that are in support of basic transmission service
provided by a Transmission Provider.
The Phase I OASIS is a passive communication system. A
customer sends a request for a discount directly to the
Transmission Provider. But the passive nature of the Phase I
OASIS prevents the Transmission Provider from sending a reply
directly to the customer. Instead, the Transmission Provider
posts the reply on the OASIS and the customer must periodically
check the node for the reply. A more active communication system
-58- Docket No. RM95-9-001
would permit the Transmission Provider to send replies directly
to customers, as well as to anyone else who is interested.
Offers and replies could be exchanged quickly, and the
unnecessary delays caused by the cumbersomeness of the passive
system would be eliminated. We, therefore, request the How
Working Group to consider adding more active capabilities to the
OASIS in Phase II. 75/
The Commission's revised discount policy necessitates
certain changes to the Standards and Protocols document. The
OASIS regulations require that prices offered by a Transmission
Provider be posted and that discounts requested by customers be
posted. However, under the current Standards and Protocols
document, the templates for posting of offered and requested
prices do not identify whether these prices constitute a discount
and how much of a discount these prices represent. We believe
that this information is vitally important to prevent
discrimination.
Accordingly, we are requiring that the templates in the
Standards and Protocols document dealing with posted offerings (
4.3.2), status of transmission service requests ( 4.3.7), and
75/ Other benefits of an active system include:
ù Making the market more efficient by notifying customers
immediately of changes in ATC on specified paths and
sending system-wide notices directly to customers as
soon as they are issued.
ù Making OASIS nodes more responsive by reducing the load
on the servers caused by customers periodically
checking for messages.
-59- Docket No. RM95-9-001
status of ancillary service requests ( 4.3.9), be revised to
include: (1) the Transmission Provider's filed (ceiling)
transmission and ancillary services rates; (2) the Transmission
Provider's offering price; (3) the price requested by the
customer; and (4) the details of the negotiated transaction. We
request that the How Working Group propose the necessary changes
in the Standards and Protocols document and the Data Dictionary
by June 2, 1997.
Turning to EPRI/NERC Working Group's request that we clarify
that the purpose of the requirement in 37.6(c)(4) (formerly
found at 37.6(c)(3)) to post discount information for 30 days
is to record the discount and does not constitute a continuing
offer of a discount, we agree that this posting requirement does
not constitute an offer of a discount. The purpose of this
requirement is to document discounting that might be considered
unduly preferential or discriminatory. To serve this purpose, it
is important that Transmission Customers have ready access to
this information. Posting of discounts provides ready access,
while the audit information does not.
7. Secondary Markets
In the OASIS Final Rule, the Commission directed, in
37.6(c)(4), that customers choosing to use the OASIS to offer
transmission capacity (that they have purchased) for resale must
post relevant information on the same OASIS used by that customer
in purchasing the transmission capacity. This information must
be posted on the same display page, using the same tables, as
-60- Docket No. RM95-9-001
similar capability being sold by the Transmission Provider, and
the information must be contained in the same downloadable files
as the Transmission Provider's own available capability. A
customer reselling transmission capacity without the use of an
OASIS must, nevertheless, inform the original Transmission
Provider of the transaction within the time limits prescribed by
23.1 ( Procedures for Assignment of Transmission Service ) of
the Open Access pro forma tariff.
Rehearing Requests
CCEM makes three arguments regarding secondary markets.
First, CCEM argues that the Commission erred by not allowing the
assignee of transmission capacity, or its agent, to schedule the
transmission service obtained in the secondary market. Second,
CCEM argues that the Commission should clarify that it will not
impose onerous regulations on secondary market participants.
Third, CCEM argues that the Commission erred by not excluding
customers receiving service under pre-Open Access tariffs from
participation in the secondary market until they agree to comply
with the Open Access pro forma tariff. 76/
Commission Conclusion
CCEM's arguments relate more to our findings in Order No.
888 than to the OASIS Final Rule. Accordingly, we incorporate
here our findings that we explain in greater detail in Order No.
888-A. First, the Open Access pro forma tariff does not prohibit
the assignee of transmission capacity from scheduling
76/ CCEM Rehearing Request at pp. 6-7.
-61- Docket No. RM95-9-001
transmission service with the Transmission Provider. Second, the
issues raised by CCEM with respect to the regulation of resellers
into the secondary market are fact specific and we will decide
them on a case-by-case basis. Third, we reject CCEM's argument
that customers receiving service under pre-Open Access tariffs
should be excluded from participation in the secondary market
until they agree to comply with the Open Access pro forma tariff.
8. Masking of Service Request Information
Section 37.6(e)(1)(ii) of the OASIS Final Rule requires the
Responsible Party to post certain information about the status of
the request. In 37.6(e)(1)(iii) of the OASIS Final Rule, the
Commission allowed the parties to mask the identity of the
requester during the negotiation period and for 30 days after the
request is accepted, denied or withdrawn.
Under 37.6(e)(1) and 37.6(e)(3), all requests for
transmission service and all transmission service curtailments or
interruptions must be posted on the Transmission Provider's OASIS
in accordance with the terms of the Transmission Provider's
tariff. 77/ Under the OASIS Final Rule, parties to these
transactions were allowed to request that their identities be
masked for 30 days. See 37.6(e)(1)(iii) and 37.6(e)(3)(i).
Rehearing Requests
77/ The issue of the timing of when requests for transmission
service, responses thereto, curtailments, and interruptions
must be posted on the OASIS is discussed in section IV.G.9
below.
-62- Docket No. RM95-9-001
APPA argues that the Commission erred in permitting
Transmission Providers to withhold critical market information
about requests for transmission and ancillary services. APPA and
Blue Ridge believe that the 30-day masking period for the
identity of the requester is inappropriate. They claim that the
Commission failed to require posting of the price, quantity, and
any other relevant terms or conditions associated with a request
for service at the time when the provider accepts the request.
They argue that withholding the precise terms of a proposed
transaction and the identity of parties denies other market
participants the opportunity to make informed decisions, is
potentially discriminatory, and inefficient. They argue that
data provided 30 days later are of little use to market
participants. 78/
CCEM identifies an apparent conflict between the OASIS
regulations and OASIS Final Rule preamble on the posting of
denials. It asks the Commission to clarify that Transmission
Providers need not post, for reasons other than those related to
ATC, the reason for any denial of transmission service on an
OASIS. A requester can, however, request a fuller explanation.
79/
EEI argues that masking the identities of requesters should
not apply to system operators. EEI argues that system operators
78/ APPA Rehearing Request at pp. 19-21 and Blue Ridge Rehearing
Request at p. 39.
79/ CCEM Rehearing Request at pp. 11-12.
-63- Docket No. RM95-9-001
need to know all the parties to a transaction to ensure
reliability and to ensure equity in the treatment of customers.
80/
NE Public Power District argues that certain provisions in
the Final Rule dealing with confidentiality (i.e.,
37.6(e)(1)(iii) and 37.6(e)(3)(i)) are in conflict with Nebraska
state law. NE Public Power District explains that it is subject
to state freedom of information laws and must disclose
commercially sensitive information such as the identity of a
customer seeking transmission service, unless the information
constitutes an exempt trade secret. 81/ NE Public Power
District maintains that utilities subject to local freedom of
information laws should be given the option to conform their
conduct to those laws.
Commission Conclusion
We agree with APPA that the masking provision should be
dropped and we are amending our regulations accordingly. We are
making this decision as part of our new discounting policy, that
we explain more fully above and in Order No. 888-A. Consistent
with this finding, we request that the How Working Group
eliminate any references in the Standards and Protocols document
to masking the identities of parties (e.g., 4.3.7(b)). This
should be done in concert with the report to be submitted no
later than June 2, 1997. Moreover, EEI s concern that the
80/ EEI Rehearing Request at p. 49.
81/ NE Public Power District Rehearing Request at p. 14.
-64- Docket No. RM95-9-001
masking of parties identities would apply to system operators is
now moot. NE Public Power District's concerns are also moot.
We agree with CCEM that language in the preamble of the
OASIS Final Rule can be interpreted as being inconsistent with
the requirement in 37.6(e)(2)(i) to provide the reasons why
requests for service are denied. However, consistent with the
Commission's new discounting policy, we will interpret
37.6(e)(2)(i) to require Transmission Providers to post the
reasons for a denial of a request for service on the OASIS for
review by all OASIS users.
We will also take this opportunity to clarify that 37.6(e)
applies not only to requests for transmission service, but also
to requests for ancillary service. Although this was the intent
of the OASIS Final Rule, it was not clearly stated. We will make
the necessary revisions to make this clear.
9. Requests for Service Made on the OASIS
During Phase I
On December 23, 1996, the How Working Group filed a letter
requesting clarification of whether the Commission intended, in
the OASIS Final Rule, to require that the OASIS serve as a next
hour reservation tool during Phase 1 of OASIS implementation.
The letter stated:
It was the interpretation of the How Working Group that
a Provider would accept reservation requests after 2
p.m. of the preceding day, only if practical.
Otherwise, these requests would be accepted off-line
and posted after-the-fact. It was our view that next
hour functionality was not feasible in Phase 1.
-65- Docket No. RM95-9-001
In response, the Commission issued an order explaining that the
OASIS Final Rule makes a clear distinction between reserving
transmission service and scheduling transmission service. 82/
The Commission further explained that the Phase 1 OASIS
regulations create a mechanism for making reservations of
transmission service, while the inclusion of energy scheduling as
part of the OASIS requirements was left as a Phase 2 OASIS issue.
Nevertheless, the Commission acknowledged that for near-term
transactions, the distinction between scheduling and reservations
tends to blur. This left the problem raised by the How Working
Group's letter. To wit,
[t]he OASIS regulations provide, at 18 C.F.R.
37.6(e)(1), that [a]ll requests for transmission
services offered by Transmission Providers under the
pro forma tariff must be made on the OASIS.
Notwithstanding the clear language of this regulation,
the How Working Group would like to accommodate
requests for service, made after 2:00 p.m. of the day
preceding the commencement of such service, off the
OASIS and states that it is not feasible to handle such
requests on the OASIS during Phase 1. [83/]
To resolve this difficulty, the Commission clarified in a
recent order that,
82/ See Open Access Same-time Information System and Standards
of Conduct, 77 FERC 61,335 at 62,491 (1996) (Clarifying
Order).
83/ Letter dated December 23, 1996 from the How Working Group.
The 2:00 p.m. deadline is consistent with 14.6 of the Open
Access pro forma tariff, which provides: Schedules for
Non-Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service must be
submitted to the Transmission Provider no later than 2:00
p.m. . . . of the day prior to commencement of such service.
Schedules submitted after 2:00 p.m. will be accommodated, if
practicable. See Clarifying Order, 77 FERC at 62,492, n.4.
-66- Docket No. RM95-9-001
during Phase I, a request for transmission service made
after 2:00 p.m. of the day preceding the commencement
of such service, will be made on the OASIS if it is
made directly on the OASIS, or, if it is made by
facsimile or telephone and promptly (within one hour)
posted on the OASIS by the Transmission Provider. In
all other circumstances, requests for transmission
service must be made exclusively on the OASIS. [84/]
As part of the Commission's revised discount policy, see
discussion in Section IV.G.6 and Order No. 888-A, we have
required Transmission Providers to post requests for transmission
and ancillary services, including requests for discounts, on the
OASIS prior to taking action on those requests. 85/ This
policy applies to all requests for discounts for transmission
and/or ancillary service with the exception of requests for next-
hour service during Phase I. 86/
For next-hour service requests, the Transmission Provider,
during Phase I, must post the request for discounted service on
the OASIS, as soon as possible, but in no event later than one
hour after the request for a discount is received.
In the event that a discount is being requested for
ancillary services that are not in support of a basic
transmission service being offered by the Transmission Provider,
this need not be posted on the OASIS. 87/
84/ Id. (Emphasis in original).
85/ See 37.6(e(1)(i).
86/ See 37.6(e)(1)(ii).
87/ See 37.6(e)(1)(iii).
-67- Docket No. RM95-9-001
10. Delay in Posting Requests for Hourly Transmission
Service and Schedule Information
Section 37.6(e) requires a Transmission Provider to post on
the OASIS requests for transmission service that is offered by
that Transmission Provider under its Open Access pro forma
tariff, in accordance with its tariff, the FPA, and Commission
regulations. Section 37.6(f) requires information about
transmission service schedules to be recorded and available for
download from the OASIS. This information must be available
within seven calendar days of when the service is scheduled.
Rehearing Requests
CCEM requests that the Commission clarify that Responsible
Parties must post requests for hourly firm and nonfirm
transmission within the next hour following the request. 88/
APPA and Blue Ridge argue that the seven-day delay in
posting transmission schedule data is potentially discriminatory
and makes the data meaningless for hourly or daily transactions.
They ask that Responsible Parties post schedule information when
they update postings of ATC or, at latest, when service begins.
89/
Commission Conclusion
88/ CCEM Rehearing Request at pp. 4-5. We note that CCEM's
rehearing request regarding hourly firm transmission service
is misplaced. The Commission has rejected hourly firm
point-to-point transmission service as a mandatory service
to be provided under the Open Access pro forma tariff. See
Order No. 888, FERC Stats & Regs. at 31,752.
89/ APPA Rehearing Request at p. 23 and Blue Ridge Rehearing
Request at p. 40.
-68- Docket No. RM95-9-001
The OASIS regulations currently do not specify how soon the
Responsible Party must post a request for service after it is
received. However, under our new discounting policy we are
requiring such postings to be made prior to the Transmission
Provider responding to the request. Moreover, although we are
not adopting a specific time period for such postings, as
requested by CCEM, we are adding a requirement that all such
postings be made on a comparable basis, to prevent discriminatory
practices.
The Phase I OASIS is a transmission information and service
application system. The Commission accepts the industry s
position that including scheduling of transmission service in the
Phase I OASIS is not possible. The Commission strongly
encourages the industry to consider including transmission
service scheduling in Phase II of the OASIS.
The reporting of schedule information serves the same
purpose as the audit information (i.e., to document
discriminatory practices). The Commission does not intend
schedule information to supplement ATC postings on a same-time
basis during Phase I.
11. Liability for Accuracy of ATC/TTC Estimates
In the OASIS Final Rule, the Commission found that the
responsibility for assuring the reliability and accuracy of data
supplied by third parties rests with those third parties and not
with the public utility that posts this information on the OASIS
-69- Docket No. RM95-9-001
as an accommodation. 90/ As to the accuracy of a Transmission
Provider's own estimates of its ATC and TTC, the OASIS Final Rule
provides that Transmission Providers are required to post the
amounts expected to be available ( 37.6(b)) but does not
directly address whether (and to what extent) Transmission
Providers are liable for the accuracy of good faith estimates
made in accordance with prescribed procedures.
Rehearing Request
CSW argues that Transmission Providers should not be liable
for the accuracy of ATC & TTC estimates made in good faith and in
accordance with the company's published procedures. 91/
Commission Conclusion
As further discussed in Order No. 888-A, the Commission will
not revise the Open Access pro forma tariff, as requested by CSW,
to provide that a Transmission Provider will not be liable for
errors in an estimate made in good faith or in accordance with
its published procedure, because we believe that a utility should
have the same liability standard for operating an OASIS as it has
for its other operations. 92/
90/ See 18 CFR 37.6(g)(2) and OASIS Final Rule, 61 FR at
21,755.
91/ CSW Rehearing Request at pp. 2-6.
92/ See, e.g., Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, 62 FERC
61,015 at 61,107 (1993).
-70- Docket No. RM95-9-001
H. SECTION 37.7 -- AUDITING TRANSMISSION SERVICE
INFORMATION
The OASIS regulations require that all OASIS database
transactions, except want ads and other communications , are
to be stored and remain available for download for 90 days.
After 90 days, the audit data are available on request for three
years.
Rehearing Requests
EEI argues that the retention period for audit data retained
under 37.7(b) is excessive and should be reduced from 90 days
to 7 days. EEI argues that, beyond 7 days, the data could be
provided off-line, upon request. 93/
Similarly, EPRI/NERC Working Group (with APPA dissenting)
argues that the Commission should reduce the on-line availability
of the ATC/TTC data in the audit file from 90 to 10 days. They
claim that the longer time limit is burdensome and unfeasible and
suggest making the data available off-line. 94/
Commission Conclusion
The Commission agrees with the proposal of the EPRI/NERC
Working Group majority that we should reduce the amount of time
that the audit file remains on-line. However, we believe that
ten days may not be long enough to provide OASIS users with
sufficient time to evaluate these data. In our judgment, 20
calendar days is a period that will allow OASIS users who wish to
93/ EEI Rehearing Request at p. 52.
94/ EPRI/NERC Working Group Rehearing Request at pp. 9-10.
-71- Docket No. RM95-9-001
do so adequate time to find and download these data (even
allowing for weekends or holidays) without unduly burdening
Transmission Providers. Therefore, we will modify the
regulations at 37.7(b) to shorten -- from 90 to 20 days -- the
time during which ATC/TTC postings must remain available on the
OASIS for download. The data will, however, remain available
(upon request) for three years from the date on which they are
first posted.
We will take this opportunity to correct an omission in
37.6(g)(3). As written, this provision currently does not
specify the retention period for notices of employee transfers.
We will correct this omission by specifying that the posting
requirements for notices of employee transfers are the same as
those provided in 37.7 for audit data postings. We request
that the How Working Group propose the necessary template (for
notices of employee transfers) to be included in the Standards
and Protocols document.
We also will take this opportunity to clarify that the audit
data required to be made available for three years under
37.7(b) are to be made available upon request for download in the
same electronic form as used when they originally were posted on
the OASIS.
I. STANDARDS AND COMMUNICATION PROTOCOLS
1. CCEM's Suggested Changes to the Standards and
Protocols Document
The OASIS Final Rule was accompanied by a Standards and
Protocols document, revised on September 10, 1996, to help ensure
-72- Docket No. RM95-9-001
that each OASIS will provide information in a uniform manner.
95/ The publication details the Phase I requirements for
technical issues related to the implementation and use of an
OASIS (i.e., a compilation of OASIS standards and communication
protocols).
Rehearing Request
CCEM argues that the Commission should clarify certain
technical aspects of the templates in the OASIS Standards and
Protocols document. We will discuss these various suggested
revisions separately.
a. Service Request Priorities
The Open Access pro forma tariff requires Transmission
Providers to respond to customer requests for point-to-point
service within a certain time limit depending on the type of
service requested. 96/ The OASIS Standards and Protocols
document states that [i]f a purchase request is approved by the
Seller, then it must be again confirmed by the Customer. Once
the customer confirms an approved purchase, a reservation for
those services is considered to exist, unless later the
reservation is reassigned or displaced. 97/
Rehearing Request
CCEM asks the Commission to clarify priorities between
competing requests for service. They also ask that Transmission
95/ See supra note 4.
96/ See Open Access pro forma tariff at 17.5 and 18.4.
97/ See Standards and Protocols document at 3.6(b).
-73- Docket No. RM95-9-001
Customers be allowed to confirm a purchase request before it has
been approved by the Transmission Provider. 98/
EPRI/NERC Working Group requests that the Commission: (1)
specify a time limit for customer confirmation of accepted
requests for service; (2) eliminate the confirmation step; or (3)
handle confirmation limits in umbrella service agreements. 99/
Commission Conclusion
The requirement that a customer confirm its request for
service appears in the OASIS Standards and Protocols document
(and not in the Open Access pro forma tariff or 18 CFR Part 37).
Although the easiest approach might be to eliminate the
confirmation step, the Commission is reluctant to modify the
OASIS Standards and Protocols document at this late date. The
Commission is also reluctant to specify confirmation time limits
without first soliciting the views of representative industry
segments. Accordingly, the Commission requests that the industry
address this issue as part of the Phase II report due on or
before August 4, 1997.
As to EPRI/NERC Working Group s suggestion of handling
confirmation limits in umbrella service agreements, we find this
acceptable, for the time being, as long as Transmission Providers
treat all customers, including their own wholesale merchant
employees, comparably.
98/ CCEM Rehearing Request at p. 7.
99/ EPRI/NERC Working Group letter dated July 3, 1996 at pp. 1-
2.
-74- Docket No. RM95-9-001
b. Clarification of the Requirement to Post,
Upload, and Download Information
In the OASIS Final Rule, the Commission discussed the
necessity for Hypertext Mark-up Language (HTML) screen displays
and stated that this information also needed to be made available
for downloading. 100/ The Commission also required OASIS
sites to be set up in a manner that will allow customers to
upload certain information to OASIS nodes.
Rehearing Request
CCEM requests that the Commission clarify that when the
OASIS Final Rule makes an individual reference to uploading ,
downloading , or posting requirements (without expressly
making a reference to all three of these requirements), the
Commission, nevertheless, intended to require, as appropriate, a
collective requirement to upload, download, and post the
information at issue. CCEM points out that uploading and
downloading are computer to computer transactions, while posting
is an on-line function. CCEM argues that, in order for the OASIS
system to function effectively in providing open access
Transmission Customers with information through electronic means,
uploading and downloading should always be required as an
alternative to comparable on-line services. 101/
Commission Conclusion
100/ See OASIS Final Rule, 61 FR at 21,756.
101/ CCEM Rehearing Request at p. 12.
-75- Docket No. RM95-9-001
Section 4.3.1 of the revised Standards and Protocols
document, issued subsequent to CCEM s request, specifies what
type of information may be uploaded to, or downloaded from, OASIS
nodes. Thus, CCEM's goal of clarifying the requirements for
uploading, downloading, and posting has been met. We, therefore,
find that it is not necessary to broadly reinterpret the terms
used in the OASIS Final Rule, as urged by CCEM.
c. Sequence of Data Elements Appearing in
Templates
Section 4.2.4.2 of the revised Standards and Protocol
document discusses the format of downloadable files. The
narrative in 4.2.4.2 2.d states:
The DATA_ROWS record contains the number of data
records following the COLUMN_HEADERS. The
COLUMN_HEADERS record contains the template element
name for each field that is required in the Template,
in the exact order as listed in the Template. . . .
The Template information then follows as records which
correspond one-to-one with the column headings.
Rehearing Request
CCEM requests clarification that the data elements that make
up the templates in the Standards and Protocols document are
fixed in sequence and in number. CCEM argues that because
computer systems will be established on the basis of the
templates outlined in the Standards and Protocols document,
including the sequence of templates and the number of data
elements, it is important that the order of the data provided in
the templates not be shuffled. Otherwise, problems may occur in
-76- Docket No. RM95-9-001
the transfer and receipt of information between computer systems.
102/
Commission Conclusion
To avoid any possible confusion, we hereby clarify that the
Standards and Protocols document requires that the data elements
in the templates are fixed in sequence and number, and are not to
differ from OASIS node to OASIS node. However, the Commission
will continue to order revisions to the Standards and Protocols
document periodically (thus implementing across-the-board changes
to the templates for all OASIS nodes), as necessary.
2. Standardized Format for Electronic Tariff Filings
In the OASIS Final Rule, the Commission found that utilities
must provide tariff downloads from their OASIS sites in the same
format that they use to file their tariffs with the Commission.
Order No. 888 permitted tariff filings to be in any word
processor format.
Rehearing Request
APPA argues that the standardized electronic format for
tariffs needs to be specified and recommends the use of either
ASCII or HTML. 103/
Commission Conclusion
The Commission's order clarifying Order Nos. 888 and 889
compliance matters resolved the issue raised by APPA by requiring
that tariffs be filed in either Wordperfect 5.1/5.2 or ASCII
102/ Id.
103/ APPA Rehearing Request at p. 25.
-77- Docket No. RM95-9-001
format. 104/ However, in the near future, the Commission
expects to adopt another standard word processor for its own uses
(i.e., Wordperfect 6.1). The Commission will, therefore, modify
the finding in the Clarifying Order to accept postings of tariff
filings on the OASIS in the ASCII format or in whatever standard
word processor format is currently authorized by the Commission
for its own uses. 105/ Once posted, a tariff posting will
remain available for download in its original format.
3. Company Codes and Identification Displays
In the OASIS Final Rule, the Commission required
the use of DUNS numbers to identify transmission owning
utilities and customers on OASIS nodes. 106/
Rehearing Requests
APPA argues that, notwithstanding claims to the contrary,
the use of DUNS numbers could result in costs being incurred by
OASIS users. APPA also argues that, because Dun & Bradstreet
also owns Moody s Investors Services, DUNS numbers may somehow
allow Dun & Bradstreet/Moody s customers to obtain access to
104/ Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open-Access Non-
Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities and
Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and
Transmitting Utilities, Open Access Same-Time Information
System and Standards of Conduct, Order Clarifying Order Nos.
888 and 889, 76 FERC 61,009 at 61,026 (1996) (Clarifying
Order).
105/ A review of CIPS, or any successor, will show what standard
word processor is currently authorized by the Commission for
its own uses.
106/ DUNS numbers refer to the Data Universal Numbering System,
maintained by Dun and Bradstreet.
-78- Docket No. RM95-9-001
confidential information about APPA members. Accordingly, APPA
requests that the Commission use the EIA (Energy Information
Agency) UCode in lieu of DUNS numbers to identify transmission
owning utilities and OASIS customers. 107/
CCEM requests that the Commission clarify that when
information is uploaded and downloaded, the DUNS number
identification of the parties be the only field required to
identify a company. CCEM also requests clarification that the
Commission require that for purposes of the HTML displays, the
minimum data element to be displayed should be the company s
alias/initials. 108/
In addition, CCEM requests that Transmission Providers be
required to maintain an additional display containing a cross-
reference of DUNS number, full company name, and alias/initials.
CCEM argues that the cross-reference will reduce confusion on the
OASIS. 109/
Commission Conclusion
The industry-wide Internet site on the WWW
(http:\www.tsin.com) reports that Dun & Bradstreet will issue
DUNS numbers at no charge and provides instructions and
procedures for applying for a DUNS number at no cost. This
representation is consistent with our experience in issuing DUNS
numbers for natural gas pipelines and their customers. We,
107/ APPA Rehearing Request at p. 25.
108/ CCEM Rehearing Request at p. 13.
109/ Id.
-79- Docket No. RM95-9-001
therefore, find APPA's concerns about the costs of DUNS numbers
to be unwarranted.
As to APPA s concern about DUNS numbers somehow giving
Moody s customers unrestricted access to otherwise restricted
information, we do not find this concern convincing. The
Commission has several years experience with requiring the use
of DUNS numbers for similar identification purposes in the
natural gas pipeline industry and has not received any complaints
along these lines.
We decline to adopt CCEM's proposal concerning
identification fields and a data element displays. The industry
is in the midst of implementing OASIS standards and we are
reluctant to modify the Standards and Protocols document at this
time unless there is a serious need for the modification. CCEM s
proposal is one that may somewhat improve the efficiency of OASIS
operations, but an OASIS can operate without it, and, with
experience, other solutions may prove preferable. We request
that the industry consider CCEM's proposal when developing
standards for OASIS Phase II implementation.
We agree with CCEM that an additional display, such as a
cross-reference of possible business partners and their various
identification codes and symbols, would greatly enhance the
industry s ability to transact business. Subsequent to CCEM s
request, the TSIN WWW site began providing such a cross-
reference. As long as this Internet site continues to provide
-80- Docket No. RM95-9-001
this information for the entire industry, there is no need for
individual Transmission Providers to do so.
4. Common Location Codes
In the preamble to the OASIS Final Rule, we stated that we
were abandoning the proposal in the RIN NOPR to require that the
OASIS incorporate a system for location codes. We requested that
the industry continue its efforts to develop a common naming
convention to be implemented as soon as practicable.
Rehearing Request
CCEM argues that the Commission should modify the OASIS
Final Rule to include a requirement that Transmission Providers
provide a downloadable on-line listing of all PORs and PODs that
includes point name, point alias, and point code. CCEM also
requests that when downloading this information, the customer
should have the ability to download only those aspects of the
listing that have changed over a user-defined time period.
110/
Commission Conclusion
After CCEM filed its rehearing request, the Standards and
Protocols document was revised to require that this information
be provided. 111/
5. Time by Which Hourly Postings Must be Made
Available
110/ Id.
111/ See Standards and Protocols document at 4.3.5.
-81- Docket No. RM95-9-001
The OASIS Final Rule requires that updates of hourly
postings under 37.6(b)(3)(i)(C)(2) are to be made on the hour.
Rehearing Request
CCEM requests that the Commission clarify that all hourly
postings will be available no later than on the hour. CCEM
argues that these requirements will be critical if computer-to-
computer interfaces are to be accomplished with reliability and
comparability. 112/
Commission Conclusion
Subsequent to CCEM's request, the Commission issued a
revised Standards and Protocol document that defines permissible
deviations from the hourly posting requirement. 113/ The
Transmission Provider's most recent transmission services
information must be available on the OASIS node within five
minutes of its required posting time at least 98 percent of the
time. The remaining two percent of the time, the transmission
services information must be available within ten minutes of its
scheduled posting time. 114/ We are satisfied with the
resolution of this issue in the revised Standards and Protocols
document, at least for the time being. However, the industry may
want to address this issue again, in Phase II, after it has more
experience transacting business on the OASIS.
J. MECHANISM FOR RECOVERING OASIS EXPENSES
112/ CCEM Rehearing Request at p. 13.
113/ See supra note 4.
114/ See Standards and Protocols document at 5.7.
-82- Docket No. RM95-9-001
In the preamble to the OASIS Final Rule, the Commission
concluded that it is appropriate that all wholesale Transmission
Customers and all unbundled retail Transmission Customers pay a
share of OASIS development costs in their rates. The costs of
developing an OASIS are to be included in unbundled transmission
rates with variable costs of operating an OASIS to be recovered,
to the extent possible, in usage fees. Recovery of OASIS costs
is left to individual rate proceedings. 115/
Rehearing Requests
EEI argues that the costs of operating an OASIS should be
recoverable in supplements that the Transmission Providers file
to their rate schedules on a company-specific basis. They ask
that Transmission Providers not be required to amend their
approved tariffs to seek recovery of OASIS expenses. They argue
that refiling would be a problem because it would entail
unnecessary expenses, because the level of such expenses is
subject to change, and because the OASIS requirements are still
evolving and the systems are not yet complete. 116/
Commission Conclusion
EEI is asking the Commission to allow utilities to
automatically adjust their transmission rates to recover their
OASIS costs without filing for a change in rates. The Commission
has allowed this sort of automatic rate adjustment for fuel costs
through fuel adjustment clauses, but only because fuel costs are
115/ See OASIS Final Rule, 61 FR at 21,760-61.
116/ EEI Rehearing Request at pp. 54-55.
-83- Docket No. RM95-9-001
a significant portion of total costs and can be volatile. OASIS
costs are neither. We deny EEI s request.
K. SECTION 37.8 -- IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE; PHASES
Order No. 889 provided that all of the requirements
prescribed in the standards of conduct were to be complied with
and Phase I OASIS sites meeting all the requirements of the OASIS
Final Rule were to be in operation by November 1, 1996. 117/
This compliance schedule later was modified (in response to a
request from the How Working Group for a two-step time extension)
with full compliance required by January 3, 1997. 118/ Thus,
the date for compliance with Phase I OASIS implementation and for
compliance with the standards of conduct has elapsed and the
language in 37.8 is no longer accurate, even as a record of
past events. We, therefore, will revise 18 CFR Part 37 to delete
this provision.
Rehearing Request
Union argues that it has been given insufficient time to
comply and objects to the requirement that OASIS systems must be
in place by November 1, 1996. Union argues that compliance by
such an early date will require the company to incur a
considerable effort and expense and will involve the development
of intricate electronic information functions, even though the
117/ See OASIS Final Rule, 61 FR at 21,764.
118/ See supra note 6.
-84- Docket No. RM95-9-001
operational requirements for OASIS sites have not yet been
completed. 119/
Commission Conclusion
We find Union's arguments to be moot. As noted above, after
Union filed its request for rehearing, the Commission issued a
revised Standards and Protocols document that more fully
describes the operational requirements of OASIS sites, and
granted the request from the How Working Group for a 2-month time
extension for compliance with the requirements of Order No. 889.
Moreover, the Commission invited comments from interested persons
prior to issuing the revised Standards and Protocols document.
V. REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT CERTIFICATION
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 120/ requires any
proposed or final rule issued by the Commission to contain a
description and analysis of the impact that the proposed or final
rule would have on small entities or to contain a certification
that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Order
No. 889 contained a certification under 605(b) of the RFA that
the OASIS Final Rule would not impose a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities within the
meaning of the RFA. 121/
119/ Union Rehearing Request at pp. 53-54, 56-57. We also note
that as of the issuance of this order, Union's OASIS site is
in operation.
120/ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
121/ See OASIS Final Rule, 61 FR at 21,762-63.
-85- Docket No. RM95-9-001
NRECA challenges this certification. 122/ NRECA
recognizes that OASIS requirements do not apply unless a non-
public utility offers reciprocal transmission service. 123/
However, NRECA maintains that business necessity will force non-
public utilities to file open access tariffs, and thus subject
themselves to OASIS requirements, since, if they do not, they
will not retain access over the long-term to the nation's bulk
power transmission grid -- access they must have if they wish to
stay in business. 124/
In the OASIS Final Rule, we noted that the entities that
would have to comply with the Final Rule are public utilities.
However, the Commission under appropriate circumstances will
grant waiver of the Final Rule requirements to small public
utilities. Similarly, it will grant waiver of the reciprocity
condition to small non-public utilities. As discussed earlier,
in section IV.B.3, the Commission's waiver policy follows the SBA
definition of small electric utility. 125/
122/ NRECA Rehearing Request at pp. 42-48. On November 1, 1996,
NRECA filed a supplement to its request for rehearing and
clarifications. We will accept NRECA's pleading as a
request for clarification and/or a motion for
reconsideration, and not as a request for rehearing, because
it was not filed within the 30-day statutory time limit for
rehearing requests. See 16 U.S.C. 8251(a).
123/ OASIS Final Rule, 61 FR at 21,742.
124/ NRECA Rehearing Request at pp. 42-43.
125/ See 5 U.S.C. 601(3) and 601(6) and 15 U.S.C. 632(a).
The RFA defines a small entity as one that is independently
owned and not dominant in its field of operation. See 15
U.S.C. 632(a). The Small Business Administration defines
(continued...)
-86- Docket No. RM95-9-001
We disagree with NRECA that non-public utilities must
publish open access tariffs or forego access to the nation's bulk
power transmission grid. As we noted in the Open Access Final
Rule, non-public utilities do not have to offer open access
tariffs in order to comply with the open access reciprocity
condition; rather, they must offer reciprocal transmission access
to those public utility Transmission Providers from whom they
receive open access service. Additionally, reciprocal service is
voluntary. If non-public utilities do not want to offer
reciprocal service, they may continue to seek voluntary,
bilateral transmission services from public utilities. 126/
We note that since NRECA filed its rehearing comments, the
Commission has issued several orders addressing its waiver policy
and specific waiver requests. We have granted waivers of the
reciprocity provision in the Open Access pro forma tariffs and
waivers of the requirements of the OASIS Final Rule:
approximately 17 small entities have received waivers of the Open
125(...continued)
a small electric utility as one that disposes of 4 million
MWh or less of electric energy in a given year. See 13 CFR
121.601 (Major Group 49-Electric, Gas and Sanitary Services)
(1995).
In the Open Access Final Rule, we concluded that, under
these definitions, the Open Access Final Rule would not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. We reaffirm that conclusion in Order No.
888-A, which is being issued contemporaneously with this
order on rehearing. This same conclusion is warranted here,
because Order No. 889 and this order on rehearing only
implement the OASIS requirements of the Open Access Final
Rule.
126/ Open Access Final Rule, 61 FR at 21,540 and 21,691.
-87- Docket No. RM95-9-001
Access Final Rule; 127/ approximately 36 small entities have
received waivers of the requirement to establish and maintain an
OASIS and/or the requirement to comply with the standards of
conduct requirements of the OASIS Final Rule. 128/ We also
have granted waiver of the open access tariff reciprocity
provision that would apply to ten small non-public utility
applicants if they chose to receive open access transmission
service, and have determined that 19 small non-public electric
utilities that requested exemption from all or part of the Open
Access Rule are not public utilities subject to the requirement
to file an open access tariff. 129/
Although NRECA speculates that it may be burdensome for
small non-public utilities to file for waiver of our Open Access
and OASIS Final Rules, many small public and non-public utilities
have found little or no problem in obtaining waivers when they
are properly justified under our waiver standards. As the
Commission's decisions show, the Commission is carefully
evaluating the effect of the OASIS Final Rule on small electric
utilities and is granting waivers where appropriate, thus
127/ See Order No. 888-A at Section VI.
128/ See Central Electric, 77 FERC at 61,311, 61,313-317 (3
waivers, including 2 for entities later found non-
jurisdictional); Northern States (21 waivers); Black Creek
(3 waivers); Midwest (5 waivers); UtiliCorp, et al., 77 FERC
61,027 (1997) (2 waivers); Soyland (6 waivers); and Dakota
(3 waivers). Of the entities granted waivers by these
orders, at least 36 involve small public utilities.
129/ See Central Electric; Niabrara; and Dakota.
-88- Docket No. RM95-9-001
mitigating the effect of that rule on small public and non-public
utilities.
Given that this order makes only minor revisions to Order
No. 889, none of which are substantive, and that we are granting
waivers from the requirements of the OASIS Final Rule to small
entities where appropriate, we reaffirm our earlier certification
that the OASIS Final Rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities and that no
regulatory flexibility analysis is required pursuant to 603 of
the RFA.
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
Order Nos. 888 and 889 were the joint subjects of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement issued in the Open Access NOPR
proceeding in Docket Nos. RM95-8-000 and RM94-7-001 on April 12,
1996. Given that this order makes only minor revisions to Order
No. 889, none of which is substantive, no separate environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement has been prepared in
this proceeding.
VII. INFORMATION COLLECTION STATEMENT
Order No. 889 contained an information collection statement
for which the Commission obtained approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). Given that this order makes only
minor revisions to Order No. 889, none of which is substantive,
OMB approval for this order will not be necessary. However, the
Commission will send a copy of this order to OMB, for
informational purposes only.
-89- Docket No. RM95-9-001
The information reporting requirements under this order are
virtually unchanged from those contained in Order No. 889.
130/ Interested persons may obtain information on the
reporting requirements by contacting the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.
20426 [Attention Michael Miller, Information Services Division,
(202) 208-1415], and the Office of Management and Budget
[Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (202) 395-3087].
VIII. EFFECTIVE DATE
The changes ordered in this order on rehearing will become
effective on [insert date 60 days after the date of publication
of this order in the Federal Register]. By issuing this order,
we are not further delaying the requirement to comply with Order
No. 889 by January 3, 1997. The current requirements of Part 37
will remain in full effect until the changes required by this
order become effective.
130/ As discussed in section IV.E.3 above, to aid in our
monitoring efforts, we are modifying 37.4 and 37.6 to
require the posting of the Transmission Provider logs
already required (by the OASIS Final Rule) to be maintained.
We also are revising the Standards and Protocols document to
specify the templates for posting discounts to be consistent
with our revised discount policy. However, given that this
information was already required to be assembled and
available for audit, these additional posting requirements
will have only a negligible effect on the information
collection requirement. Moreover, these effects are more
than offset by the revision to 37.7(b) that reduces, from
90 days to 20 days, the time during which ATC/TTC postings
must remain available for download on the OASIS.
-90- Docket No. RM95-9-001
List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 37
Open Access Same-Time Information System
By the Commission.
( S E A L )
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends
Part 37 in Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as
set forth below.
-91- Docket No. RM95-9-001
PART 37 -- OPEN ACCESS SAME-TIME INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND
STANDARDS OF CONDUCT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES
1. The authority citation for Part 37 continues to read as
follows: 16 U.S.C. 791-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42
U.S.C. 7101-7352.
2. Section 37.3 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
37.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
(e) Wholesale Merchant Function means the sale for resale
of electric energy in interstate commerce.
* * * * *
3. Section 37.4 is amended by removing paragraphs (b)(5)(v) and
(b)(5)(vi), and by revising paragraphs (b)(5)(iii) and (b)(5)(iv)
to read as follows:
37.4 Standards of Conduct.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(5) * * *
(iii) The Transmission Provider must keep a log, available
for Commission audit, detailing the circumstances and manner in
which it exercised its discretion under any terms of the tariff.
The information contained in this log is to be posted on the
OASIS as provided in 37.6(g)(4).
(iv) The Transmission Provider may not, through its tariffs
or otherwise, give preference to sales for resale by the
wholesale merchant function or by any affiliate, over the
-92- Docket No. RM95-9-001
interests of any other wholesale customer in matters relating to
the sale or purchase of transmission service (including issues of
price, curtailments, scheduling, priority, ancillary services,
etc.).
* * * * *
4. Section 37.6 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(3)(ii)(A),
(c)(3), (c)(4), (d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4), (e)(1)(i), (e)(1)(ii),
(e)(1)(iii), (e)(3)(i), and (g)(3) and by adding paragraphs
(b)(1)(iv), (c)(5), (d)(5), (e)(1)(iv), and (g)(4) to read as
follows:
37.6 Information to be posted on an OASIS.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) The word interconnection , as used in the definition
of posted path , means all facilities connecting two adjacent
systems or control areas.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) Unconstrained Posted Paths. (A) Postings of firm and
nonfirm ATC and TTC shall be posted separately by the day,
showing for the current day and the next six days following and
thereafter, by the month for the 12 months next following. If
the Transmission Provider charges separately for on-peak and off-
peak periods in its tariff, ATC and TTC will be posted separately
for the current day and the next six days following for each
-93- Docket No. RM95-9-001
period. These postings are to be updated whenever the ATC
changes by more than 20 percent of the Path's TTC.
* * * * *
(c) Posting Transmission Service Products and Prices.
* * * * *
(3) Any offer of a discount for any transmission service
made by the Transmission Provider must be announced to all
potential customers solely by posting on the OASIS.
(4) For any transaction for transmission service agreed to
by the Transmission Provider and a customer, the Transmission
Provider (at the time when ATC must be adjusted in response to
the transaction), must post on the OASIS (and make available for
download) information describing the transaction (including:
price; quantity; points of receipt and delivery; length and type
of service; identification of whether the transaction involves
the Transmission Provider's wholesale merchant function or any
affiliate; identification of what, if any, ancillary service
transactions are associated with this transmission service
transaction; and any other relevant terms and conditions) and
shall keep such information posted on the OASIS for at least 30
days. A record of the transaction must be retained and kept
available as part of the audit log required in section 37.7.
(5) Customers choosing to use the OASIS to offer for resale
transmission capacity they have purchased must post relevant
information to the same OASIS as used by the one from whom the
Reseller purchased the transmission capacity. This information
-94- Docket No. RM95-9-001
must be posted on the same display page, using the same tables,
as similar capability being sold by the Transmission Provider,
and the information must be contained in the same downloadable
files as the Transmission Provider's own available capability. A
customer reselling transmission capacity without the use of an
OASIS must, nevertheless, inform the original Transmission
Provider of the transaction within any time limits prescribed by
the Transmission Provider's tariff or in a contract or service
agreement between the Transmission Provider and a customer.
(d) Posting Ancillary Service Offerings and Prices.
* * * * *
(2) Any offer of a discount for any ancillary service made
by the Transmission Provider must be announced to all potential
customers solely by posting on the OASIS.
(3) For any transaction for ancillary service agreed to by
the Transmission Provider and a customer, the Transmission
Provider (at the time when ATC must be adjusted in response to an
associated transmission service transaction, if any), must post
on the OASIS (and make available for download) information
describing the transaction (including: date and time when the
agreement was entered into; price; quantity; length and type of
service; identification of whether the transaction involves the
Transmission Provider's wholesale merchant function or any
affiliate; identification of what, if any, transmission service
transactions are associated with this ancillary service
transaction; and any other relevant terms and conditions) and
-95- Docket No. RM95-9-001
shall keep such information posted on the OASIS for at least 30
days. A record of the transaction must be retained and kept
available as part of the audit log required in section 37.7.
(4) Any other interconnected operations service offered by
the Transmission Provider may be posted, with the price for that
service.
(5) Any entity offering an ancillary service shall have the
right to post the offering of that service on the OASIS if the
service is one required to be offered by the Transmission
Provider under the pro forma tariff prescribed by Part 35 of this
Chapter. Any entity may also post any other interconnected
operations service voluntarily offered by the Transmission
Provider. Postings by customers and third parties must be on the
same page, and in the same format, as postings of the
Transmission Provider.
(e) Posting Specific Transmission and Ancillary Service
Requests and Responses.
(1) General Rules. (i) All requests for transmission and
ancillary service offered by Transmission Providers under the pro
forma tariff, including requests for discounts, must be made on
the OASIS, and posted prior to the Transmission Provider
responding to the request, except as discussed below. The
Transmission Provider must post all requests for transmission
service and for ancillary service comparably. Requests for
transmission and ancillary service, and the responses to such
requests, must be conducted in accordance with the Transmission
-96- Docket No. RM95-9-001
Provider's tariff, the Federal Power Act, and Commission
regulations.
(ii) The requirement in paragraph (i) above, to post
requests for transmission and ancillary service offered by
Transmission Providers under the pro forma tariff, including
requests for discounts, prior to the Transmission Provider
responding to the request, does not apply to requests for next-
hour service made during Phase I.
(iii) In the event that a discount is being requested for
ancillary services that are not in support of basic transmission
service provided by the Transmission Provider, such request need
not be posted on the OASIS.
(iv) In processing a request for transmission or ancillary
service, the Responsible Party shall post the same information as
required in 37.6(c)(4), 37.6(d)(3), and the following
information: the date and time when the request is made, its
place in any queue, the status of that request, and the result
(accepted, denied, withdrawn).
* * * * *
(3) Posting when a transaction is curtailed or interrupted.
(i) When any transaction is curtailed or interrupted, the
Transmission Provider must post notice of the curtailment or
interruption on the OASIS, and the Transmission Provider must
state on the OASIS the reason why the transaction could not be
continued or completed.
* * * * *
-97- Docket No. RM95-9-001
(g) * * *
(3) Notices of transfers of personnel shall be posted as
described in 37.4(b)(2). The posting requirements are the same
as those provided in 37.7 for audit data postings.
(4) Logs detailing the circumstances and manner in which a
Transmission Provider or Responsible Party exercised its
discretion under any terms of the tariff shall be posted as
described in 37.4(b)(5)(iii). The posting requirements are the
same as those provided in 37.7 for audit data postings.
5. Section 37.7 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
37.7 Auditing Transmission Service Information.
* * * * *
(b) Audit data must remain available for download on the
OASIS for 90 days, except ATC/TTC postings that must remain
available for download on the OASIS for 20 days. The audit data
are to be retained and made available upon request for download
for three years from the date when they are first posted in the
same electronic form as used when they originally were posted on
the OASIS.
6. Section 37.8 is removed.
Page 1 of 2
[NOTE: This attachment will not appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations.]
ATTACHMENT 1
List of Requests for Rehearing of Order No. 889 (this list
includes all requests for rehearing that made a reference to
Order No. 889 in their text and/or caption)
Company Name (Abbreviation)
1. Alabama Municipal Electric Authority (AL MEA) *
2. Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc. and South Mississippi
Electric Power Association (AL EC) *
3. Operating Companies of American Electric Power System (AEP)
4. American Public Power Association (APPA)
5. Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin EC) *
6. Blue Ridge Power Agency, Northeast Texas Electric
Cooperative, Inc., Sam Rayburn G&T Electric Cooperative,
Inc., and Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc. (Blue
Ridge)
7. Ralph R. Mabey, Trustee for Cajun Electric Power
Cooperative, Inc. (Cajun) *
8. Carolina Power & Light Company (Carolina P&L)
9. Central Power and Light Company, West Texas Utilities
Company, Public Service Company of Oklahoma, and
Southwestern Electric Power Company (Central P&L) *
10. Central Montana Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (Central
Montana EC) *
11. Cities of Benton, Conway, North Little Rock, Osceola,
Prescott, West Memphis, Arkansas and the Farmers Electric
Cooperative Corporation (AK Cities) *
12. City of Redding, CA (Redding)
13. City of Santa Clara, CA (Santa Clara) *
14. Coalition for a Competitive Electric Market (CCEM)
15. Colorado Association of Municipal Utilities (CAMU)
16. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Long Island
Lighting Company, New York State Electric & Gas Corporation,
and Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (ConEd)
17. Cooperative Power (Cooperative Power) *
18. Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
19. El Paso Electric Company (El Paso)
20. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and North American
Electric Reliability Council (NERC), on behalf of Industry
Management Process on how to implement Transmission
Services Information Networks (EPRI/NERC Working Group)
21. Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) *
22. Florida Power Corporation (Florida Power Corp) *
23. Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Hoosier EC)
*
*/ Request for rehearing raises no direct Order No. 889 issues.
Page 2 of 2
24. Illinois Power Company (Illinois Power)
25. Indianapolis Power & Light Company (Indianapolis P&L)
26. Michigan Systems (Michigan Public Power Agency, Michigan
South Central Power Agency, and Wolverine Power Supply
Cooperative, Inc.) on behalf of themselves, Florida
Municipal Power Agency, and Central Minnesota Municipal
Power Agency (Michigan Systems)
27. Mid-Continent Area Power Pool (MAPP)
28. Montana-Dakota Utilities Company (Montana-Dakota Utilities)
29. Municipal Electric Utilities Association of New York State
(NY MU)
30. National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA)
31. Nebraska Public Power District (NE Public Power District)
32. New York Power Pool (NYPP)
33. Northwest Regional Transmission Association (NWRTA) *
34. Nuclear Energy Institute (Nuclear Energy Institute)
35. Nucor Corporation (Nucor)
36. Ohio Valley Electric Corporation and Indiana-Kentucky
Electric Corporation (Ohio Valley)
37. Pennsylvania Rural Electric Association and Allegheny
Electric Cooperative, Inc. (PA Coops)
38. Public Service Company of Colorado (Public Service Co of CO)
39. Southern California Edison Company (SoCal Edison)
40. Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas)
41. Southwest Regional Transmission Association (SWRTA) *
42. Transmission Access Policy Study Group (TAPS)
43. Transmission Dependent Utility Systems (TDU Systems)
44. Union Electric Company (Union Electric)
45. Utilities for an Improved Transition (FIT Utilities)
46. Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO)
*/ Request for rehearing raises no direct Order No. 889 issues.
/ Request for clarification